To AKRONOS Main Page
THE SERPENT'S TOOTH AND ITS EGG
(OR: HOW THE STUPID ARE SO OFTEN MALICIOUS)
"They know, these solitaries, free in spirit, that they continually seem other than what they think: (...) they cannot prevent a cloud of false opinions, approximations, half- admissions, indulgent silence, erroneous interpretation from gathering about their actions."
do men with so much hate
destroy what they cannot create
while we all stand by?"
Alan Parsons Project
FIRST PART - THE UGLY PRECEDENTS
1. A rat's head
Why does Rothwell hate me?
Rothwell's vengefulness and apriorisms
2. An ox's neck
Rooting out the fink
Mike Carrell's evaluation of our work and business model
The manufacture of a Vortex mob
Rothwell on Rothwell's prejudices and judgementality
The OM incident
1. Warts on the move
Why Rothwell's concerted attacks now?
1. The precedent: strident missionaries
2. Selling wisdom by the pound
3. The reintroduction of Douglas Marett
2. The final attack
1. A minion lurking in the hay
2. The recent and vicious attacks of Rothwell: how, finally, Rothwell resorts to smear and libel
3. Specific distortions of our science and technology - besides those hurled at our replication of the Reich-Einstein experiment, and our PAGD plasma technology
3.1. About Aetherometry
3.2. About Reich's discovery of the thermal and electroscopic anomalies of the ORAC and our replication and further elaboration by hard and strenuous study.
3.3. About the HYBORAC/Stirling Motor experiments
3.4. About the geomagnetic wheel
September 2003 Addendum
It is not my habit to respond to malicious and slanderous accusations from individuals who are not, nor claim to be, scientists, and who lack any well-grounded knowledge of science - let alone any knowledge whatsoever of my, and my partner Ms. Alexandra Correa's, scientific writings. My contempt usually bars me. Yet, let it be said, it is also not the first time that I have been forced, alone or with others, to respond to such accusations, especially when they evidently betray some other form of agenda.
The present case is another instance of such forcing, yet one in line indeed with the confrontations we have had for years now with Douglas Marett and James DeMeo, who are by no means foreign to the Rothwellian agenda. But more fundamentally still, the present forcing was caused by the repeated and ever more histrionic, baseless, slanderous and libelous attacks that, as I recently came to discover, Jed Rothwell had mounted in a public forum (the Vortex email list), over the past four years. By his unprovoked actions, Rothwell has made this confrontation inevitable. If he now dislikes it, he has only himself to blame.
The same, of course, applies to the rest of the Vortex gang - the egg spawned by the serpent - the Kooistras, Maretts, Reiters, and so forth, all the minions of Rothwell and his circus-master, the science-hobbyist Beaty - who, year after year, has hosted all manner of ballistic attacks mounted by these morons against my work and that of my partner.
They will perhaps understand what Basta! means. They have got their Mazzolata.
November 23rd, 2002
Paulo Correa, MSc, PhD
FIRST PART - THE UGLY PRECEDENTS
1. A rat's head
"...He quickly reassured himself that just as riding Captain Ahab was an event in his life, the judgement others passed on him was an event in theirs."
J. Kosinski, "Passion Play"
"All referents are lost and the formation of man gives way to a (...) Squid. Everything began à l'anglaise but continues à l'américaine, following an irresistible line of flight. Ahab can say with good reason he is fleeing everywhere."
G. Deleuze, "Bartleby; or, The Formula"
Why does Rothwell hate me?
A third party would do well to ask the obvious question - why does Rothwell have it in for the Correas? Indeed, Rothwell has now uncontrollably smeared the hatred he has cultivated for me over the past four years into a gratuitous hatred of my partner Alexandra as well.
So why this hatred? Very simply because of two simple and unexpected events:
1) In 1998, at the Manchester, New Hampshire conference organized by Dr. Eugene Mallove, I took 15 minutes of my allotted speaking time to allow David Marett, whose research I had substantially helped, present his correct negative findings of the Ohmori- Mizuno cell. Unbeknownst to both David and me, this conference was also the occasion for Rothwell's presentation of the Mizuno book he had both translated and prefaced. For purposes of contextualization, the reader should also realize that, at the time, the hopes for an easy success and commercialization of CF devices were still running high.
2) At the same conference, I presented my social, philosophical and political conclusions from my own experiences, regarding the difficulties or impossibilities that researchers in the field of alternative physics and energy are faced with. In the process, I rejected, with considerable revulsion, the ad hoc psychologizing of these very real and objective barriers in Rothwell's ill-fated notion of "Inventor's Disease". I did not make any reference to him, only to his purported notion, as well as to other pronouncements of similar infantilizing and degrading character - enunciated by much better people than Rothwell, such as Jacques Lacan and Irving Langmuir. But I was not kind to Rothwell's notion - any more than I was to Lacan's or Langmuir's. I had even titled that part of my lecture on the vicissitudes of being a pioneer scientist, "the psychiatrizing of the mad scientist by the stupidly ignorant". That was blunt enough. That's right, the stupidly ignorant - those who are so ignorant, they've failed to notice it; those who refuse to acknowledge their stupid ignorance when everywhere they give proof of it; those who are actually proud of their ignorance and sport it as a badge of accomplishment, as though it were a medal pinned on their chests to be proud of and to shove into the face of others - rather like a police badge. Precisely the same ones who pretend to teach that great scientists always admit to their errors, not just to their successes, but who themselves have no humility - that's right, HUMILITY - to learn, to make questions, and certainly no patience to read or understand.
And, in this precise context, I will state once again what I have said loudly and clearly before - I may well be mistaken in this or that statement or conclusion, or even in everything, if need be. But this would still provide no excuse for Rothwell and similar 'mercenary dogs of war' to carry on in the disgusting manner in which they do and have done on the Vortex 'discussion' forum. And if this time they enjoy the beating less than the last, I might even be led to believe that, as in the story of Sacher-Masoch, they have begun their therapeutic journey and found their Russian.
But indeed - who is this Rothwell that he should be entitled to create new clinical entities? Is he an MD like Lacan, a psychiatrist like Guattari, a physicist like Langmuir, a psychologist, a sociologist even? No, as befits him, he is a Literature Bachelor. Has he invented anything - or done any research? No, of course not. He has no idea whatsoever what these things mean, nor would he - even if they stuck him in the eye. Is he an armchair scientist then? Not even that, more like an armchair, period.
But even if he had some forlorn title or history to buttress his profferings - what is it exactly that he is saying? That inventors are their own worst enemies. How does he know this - since he has never invented anything, apart from this 'invention' of the 'diseased inventor'? By a supposed 'objective' study where the Wright brothers serve as his sole paradigm. Does he have a case? For what? He generalizes from this single case-study (and even there he fails to prove his point - see below) to any inventor or scientist he does not personally like.
But the two above-mentioned events would be devoid of meaning if there were not a third:
3) At the end of that morning during the 1998 Conference, as the auditorium emptied for lunch, Rothwell approached me in person, visibly upset and trembling (I did not know who he was until he gave his talk, the last of that morning; though I could hear him making all sorts of excited comments and emitting heavy exhalations during my talk). We then had a free-for-all diatribe, partially fueled by the fact that, when Rothwell intruded himself, I was in the process of talking to a fellow who was then launching a website aimed at evaluating publicly the entirety of the alternative energy field. Rothwell openly disparaged most inventors, and when it came to my mentioning Tesla and Reich, he positively exploded. I soon realized that I was dealing with a very disturbed individual. And indeed, the decibel levels grew further when I pressed my case that Tesla had kept secret much of what he had discovered, and that Reich had chosen not to reveal the principles, the circuitry and the machinery he employed for his Orgone Motor, precisely because he felt that a smashing majority of individuals in our society were neither ready to receive, grasp or comprehend this technology or the science behind it, nor able to do any good with it. Only evil.
Here, of course, the indignant Mammonism of Rothwell inevitably erupted on the skin. He vehemently and loudly denied the right of scientists and inventors to be the ones to pose or dispose of their discoveries. In a most irrational fashion, he argued that supposed discoveries such as those of Tesla regarding power transmission or of Reich regarding his OR motor did not belong to Tesla or Reich but to mankind. That's right. That neither Tesla nor Reich could or should be responsible for these discoveries and inventions. He flatly refused to allow scientists and inventors to take responsibility for their discoveries, especially if they were "this important" - including the responsibility to develop them in a benign and not in a malignant manner.
The amusing part of this extreme anti-individualist and absolutely anti-libertarian delirium is that Rothwell carries on in this way under the banner of 'market and democracy'. In his disturbed ranting, neither one can do any wrong. This smacks of the old Stalinist tactics of democratic alliances with market forces - History can do no wrong! It is perhaps an old adage that goes back to Hegel - but has now become a title that any plebs can wrench to possession of whatever belongs to someone else, to other people, to another individual.
Some of us will never forget that Hitler was elected by a democratic majority. We know well what it means to be in the minority. Nor do we forget how the money of JP Morgan destroyed the lifelong work of Tesla. How the 'democratic' power of the FDA destroyed Reich's work and reputation. We do not forget that the first responsibility of every good scientist is to try to make sure that his or her work is employed for benign purposes and not malignant ones. And that those who deny this basic and fundamental right, and use all means they can avail themselves of - media, protests, blackmail, smearing of one's reputation, etc - do so always to favour some form of totalitarian design, when not outright fascism. Undoubtedly, a design that many may be comfortable with, but just as well one that invariably destroys precisely whatever good knowledge and science can do on this planet. Like others who uttered and acted out similar bestialities before him, Rothwell's view of society and his contorted image of Humanity quite simply reduce to a Baal-Moloch - fully entitled to devour its children.
Close society down, tighten all the pores, expropriate the work and the responsibility of scientists, and the long-term result will always be the same - loss of power-puissance and intelligence, a stagnation of thought and creativity, for which only the development of war can compensate.
During that 1998 confrontation, Rothwell, literally outside of himself with rage, maintained that Reich was a fake, insane and so on - and so was Tesla, and so on. Were these more honourable times, or yesteryear, I would - in all likelihood - have either challenged him to a duel on the spot for uttering such irresponsible and contemptible remarks or simply have spat in his ignominious face. But the truth is - I have come to learn that people like Rothwell are a dime a dozen - some more latent, others just as overt and exhibitionistic. Occasionally they even turn up in one's own circle of friends. For Rothwell does indeed suffer from a disease - first identified by Reich (who was a medical doctor and psychiatrist, for those who do not know) and termed by him "emotional plague". [(Sep. 2003 note) Yes, the term is much abused today - watch what James DeMeo recently did: he put my name and that of Alexandra on his blacklist of 'emotionally plaguey' people, on a par with Mildred Brady, the initiator of the witchhunt that hounded Reich to death. Yet, he also lists our own work in Aetherometry in his bibliography of studies on Reich. He also blacklisted one of our co-workers, Dr. M. Askanas - even while Dr. Askanas, as a member of the Spoon Collective, was providing technical support for hosting his debile OBRL list. So, let us not mince words or discuss semantics. DeMeo's summa inquisitoria betrays the same sick mentality that Rothwell is possessed with.] As Reich illustrated it in the figure of Mocenigo - who persecuted Giordano Bruno to death - we find the pungently clear expression of this emotional, spiritual plague in those barren souls who demean and steal - or pass their time dreaming of demeaning and stealing - the work of dedicated scientists and pioneers, and further expect that they should be rewarded for appearing to demean and steal these inventions or discoveries for the benefit of humanity!
As in the sorry spectacle of McCarthyism, those who debase the lifelong work of others claim to deserve nothing short of a medal for their troubles. As if Mocenigo or Rothwell ever had in mind the benefit of anything but what is theirs - by theft, by disparagement, by their auto-entitlement to speak in the name of majorities. Be it a majority of ugly sods at Vortex.
So, my answer to the 'why the hatred' question is simple - Rothwell is solely pursuing a very basic vendetta - which, from what I have been able to determine, has only grown more bitter over the years in his mind - for 'having lost face' in that confrontation of 1998. Which indeed he did. It would have been wiser of him to have taken his losses and licked his wounds.
Rothwell's vengefulness and apriorisms
Over the years I have paid little or no attention to Vortex postings, save for careful selections that Mike Carrell was kind enough to send to me in the early years. But a perusal of the archives turns up all sorts of systematic misrepresentations by Rothwell that I had not been aware of at all. After labeling my '98 lecture both 'rushed' (which it was, much like a Professor Challenger lecture) and 'unsatisfactory', Rothwell proceeds to say pure nonsense:
"So far as I can determine he [Correa] has not continued the [ping-pong] tests far beyond the limits of chemistry, but only roughly 1.5 times beyond the limits." (12 Oct 1998)
The statement is gibberish. One does not test battery packs by pushing them over their chemistry limits. What could such a thing possibly mean - that one overcharged the battery? What would that achieve other than to make sure one lost charge? Or does it mean one should test a battery when it is discharged and operates below its plateau - where results are not reproducible, battery cells fail, and operation is not recommended (for obvious reasons) by manufacturers? Either way, it is a stupid senseless statement which, to top it all, disfigures our findings. Especially since I NEVER STATED ANY SUCH THING. It is a Rothwellian fabrication.
Yes, Rothwell is for the most part a shameless fabricator. This often goes with Literature degrees. Given his total lack of scientific background, one might have thought he would have some humility in learning and would have dedicated himself to reading. Instead, he is possessed by the sort of pinhead ideas one might expect at a vacuum cleaner sales convention:
"it would be better still to eliminate the second battery pack, loop the energy from battery directly back to the PAGD, and run it for a month with a live videos (sic) on the Internet and the Evening News"(12 Oct 1998).
Given that Mr. Rothwell chooses to broadcast his statements in public forums, as though they carried some sort of authoritative weight, we are obliged to respond that the 'opinion' expressed above is nothing short of an idiot's commentary on research and the world. He assumes that looping the output back to the input is an obvious idea we have not tried. But we did, and very early on in the converter research, a decade back. It soon became apparent that the output is not the same as the input - ie it is AC-like, and not DC; that it needed to be rectified; that the breakdown and sustaining voltages are quite different; that some form of step-up transformation would be required; that you cannot charge and discharge secondary batteries simultaneously with such intense currents; that the feedback loop through the rectifying step-up circuitry destroyed just about everything in its passage. And so on. Most of these results were discussed in our patents and papers, and in numerous interventions, including those of Mike Carrell. But Rothwell does not read. In fact, he takes pride in this. Facts do not matter to him. The intelligence of a process is irrelevant to him. He only sees red when the name Correa is mentioned.
Moreover, access to the Evening News and the Internet comes easy to him - on a platter. The whole world will roll out the proverbial red carpet:
"If he would only do what other successful businessmen have done throughout history, he could sidestep the chasm and drive down an 8-lane highway instead. In a few months he would have billions of dollars in capital. I still believe this. Mills, the Correas, Swartz, Stringham and many other secretive CF scientists face many obstacles, but they themselves have built these obstacles. They could walk away from these so-called problems overnight. They would soon be rolling in money, with the Congress, the DoE, and the APS at their feet. I hope that Mizuno is widely replicated and that he and others like him push the secretive researchers onto oblivion."
The apriorisms of such assertions leave me appalled and wondering - what possibly goes on in the mind of this simpleton Rothwell?? Does he have a mind of his own or is he merely a ticker tape? His entire delirium smacks of bubble gum sales sleaze. An immediatism of ticks. A bit like those hungry patent attorneys that tell you your invention will transform you overnight into a well-to-do royalty coupon clipper. I once asked one of my patent agents - the most competent patent agent I have ever met - if any of his clients who were 'small entities' or, like myself, individual inventors, had ever licensed a successful patent. His answer was no. I asked him how many of his clients were, like ourselves, attempting to licence a technology. He said that, at the time, we were the only ones - but that he had had maybe 100 or so in his long career. Then I also asked the first question of my patent lawyer and counsel, who worked in the second largest Canadian law firm. He, too, knew of no such successful licence attempts. The situation is far from being some particularity of the 'free-energy' field. It's all across the board - the most that individual inventors like ourselves can hope to do with such a pioneering technology is to sue those who infringe upon our costly patents. One should indeed ponder how it is that this situation came about - when the original legislators of the Patent Law Act had in mind precisely the opposite: a compact between society and the inventor, where benefits were to be allocated to the inventor for a limited period, so that the whole of society could benefit thereafter.
Asking this question is akin to asking how the society of brothers and sisters that Whitman perceived as the liberating spirit of the great Union became a jungle of barking and vicious dogs, carpet-baggers, corporate embezzlers and aspiring hucksters. For it is by the same process, O American citizens!, that the idea of patents as a Compact evolved into the Big Patent Game.
Yes, patenting has become a game where only large corporations engaged in R&D can benefit. They can remove and refile without loss of first filing date rights; they can suppress filings and opt for commercial secrecy; they have the seemingly endless 'disposable' capital to proceed to successive refilings and are able thereby to extend pretty much indefinitely the life of a patent. They can file veritable cataracts of continuations-in-part and absurdly costly international applications (hundreds of thousands of dollars yearly); they own the patents which their employees worked on and, above all, they pretty much refuse to talk to any inventor who is not already absorbed by some other corporate set-up, ie an employee. 'Outsiders' (the individual inventors who work outside the institutional racket) are a decided no-no - as an LTI Inc representative once stated in no uncertain terms to me and my partner, over negotiations for licensing our serum-free medium. Outsiders have to 'learn' how to be ripped off by technobureaucracies whose management skills have brought us such accomplished 'players' as Enron and Andersen, not to mention all the other near- useless institutions, such as the DOE, the APS, and so on. So, if you are an aspiring inventor or have invented anything of value - you are indeed much better off being secretive and not bothering with patenting until - if such an until ever comes - you are sure you have the sponsorship that will defray those patenting costs ON THE SPOT. The entire scheme has become nothing more than a racket for the 'official' hyenas. There is solely an illusion of a compact - at bottom, it is sanctioned robbery. And if you have something really important and you let it out - well, patent or no patent, the so-called market 'forces' will steal it from you. And that, in fact, is how the patent matter stands. I can live with this knowledge - regardless of the contempt I hold for this state of affairs. Can Rothwell? No. Because he is too busy denying experience - an easy task for him, since he has none, save a little literary and programming experience, whatever nerdiness that might have been required back in those days before the dot com feeding frenzy. He's too busy denying reality.
It is all so easy for Rothwell. Notice how he deals with those unfortunates who take the trouble to write to him about electric excess-energy devices:
"(...) in the 5 remaining cases, the inventor has been keeping it secret for 30 years and he is determined to go his grave with it, so who cares? People write to me about these things from time to time. I copy the letters to Gene in case he feels more open minded than I do, and I send a polite form letter to the inventors telling them what they need to do before I will look at their claims: 1. We are pleased to hear about this invention and we would like to know more about it, but we will not sign a non-disclosure agreement. We have no use for information we are not free to publish, and no use for a machine the inventor chooses to keep secret instead of selling. 2. We recommend that you work with local professional engineers and with us to perform independent third party verification of the claims. 3. We recommend that you apply for a patent, if you have not already done so. The application will be rejected until you convince the world the invention is real..."
Let us measure ourselves - specifically our PAGD technology - by the Rothwell yardstick; it is a delightful exercise:
1. Under NDA, two members of Rothwell's organization came to our lab and saw everything they wanted to see with respect to the PAGD technology. Both became personal friends. The demos were set up with boxes that could be opened on demand. Calibrations were conducted on all instruments. To this day neither Dr. Eugene Mallove nor Mike Carrell have either broken their NDAs with us nor have ever caused us to ask not to say x or y. We have muzzled no one. In fact, DeMeo, for one, has taken advantage of his NDA privilege to pass around our material and a supposed "critique" of it, despite his loud protestations of integrity. Not so with Gene or Mike. They have been absolutely impeccable with us, period. Moreover, since our patents had been published, the PAGD/Labofex NDAs concerned solely details of research and circuitry, know-how and business strategies - as all else is public!!!
2. Third party verifications have been carried out on our PAGD technology; aside from Gene and Mike, engineers at both Ontario Hydro and IAI verified the technologies. We met our dear friend Uri Soudak in this precise context. At his request we formulated the basic business proposal that he presented to IAI and has unwaveringly supported to this day. It was a later version of this proposal that, at the end of that ill-fated morning session in 1998, at the NH Conference, Mr. Cavicchio leafed through, very briefly . Et pour cause, since he had not signed any NDA with us at that time. Gene has read this proposal, and has had a copy of it for two or three years.
3. We applied and were granted 7 patents on the PAGD technology. We would have had world coverage (we received glowing exams in Munich) if we had had the money that appears to come so easily to Rothwell. Notwithstanding, we have also filed for other pending patents on other technologies.
So what does the exercise reveal? That we followed all the so-called 'straightforward' procedures, and passed with straight A's - only to arrive at the same point of blocked departure. That the pronouncements which Rothwell so glibly makes in public about the social, corporate, juridic and financial reality are no better than the hallucinations of any noisy two-bit pimp or whore about the world around them. Gratuitous blabber and easy-come-easy-go-ideas. Regrettably, the world of this small planet already has reams of such drivel: innumerable catalogues of commonplace notions devoid of any practical value. The Rothwell 'rules' present nothing more substantial than a series of disjointed and infantile images of imminent red carpets and truckloads of easy cash - and the notion that Money, the ultimate incarnation of Rothwell's Humanity, is divine, and the only God there is.
In fact, Rothwell just says whatever comes to his debile literary mind:
"Correa says it would be terribly difficult to feed from an active battery directly into the PAGD device, and it will cost hundreds of thousands. He has blown two invertors [sic] trying to do this. Electrical engineers tell me this is a trivial task, and Correa apparently lacks engineering skill. I cannot judge his engineering or scientific knowledge, but his notions about business and capitalism are an invitation to disaster and his attitude towards customers and the public is disgraceful" (12 Oct 1998)
In point of fact, Correa said nothing of the kind. Rothwell is so incredibly stupid and vengeful that he never bothered to study (or have someone explain to him, since he seems to be so singularly inept at reading) the basic functioning of the PAGD. Had he done so, he would have immediately realized that the PAGD is regularly driven by feeding an active or working battery to the PAGD reactor! But informing oneself is not the way 'information' circulates in the brave new Rothwellian world. No, never! Instead, words that were never uttered are ascribed to me - so that the only thing the Rothwellian text conveys is the full extent to which he, Rothwell, has NOT understood anything about the PAGD technologies. He has never in fact read any of the patents I have co-authored.
But Rothwell aspires to be the elected judge and jury of our work (as do others with much better minds than his) - hence he strategically hides behind the skirts of anonymous engineers who allegedly 'confirm' that indeed we can drive PAGD reactors from a battery! And from this lofty perch of unabated nonsense, he proceeds to judge my 'attitude' about the commodity-production system as an invitation to disaster. What exactly have I invited and which disaster have I courted? That, of course, doesn't matter. And who are these customers that have suffered what disgrace? That, too, does not matter. In the Rothwellian 'discourse' it's only the innuendo that counts. Only the fabrication matters.
And could it be that what is 'courting disaster' is precisely a world in which all communication ceases because of the incessant noise that people like Rothwell promote? He talks and he talks and he always has something to say about that which he also simultaneously admits he knows nothing about. So, we become accustomed to this unending verborrhea from those who would practically kill for the chance to preen their ignorance in public. The point is not to say something intelligent - only to be seen as having something to say. We indulge in constantly being assaulted by these bloated egos. We let them monopolize the microphone in the agora. And, slowly, this becomes all the qualification anyone needs in order to be heard and listened to.
There is an insidious and molecular fascism at work here. This is no longer simply about irresponsible labels like "Pathological Science" (Langmuir, Park) or "Inventor's Disease" (Rothwell) or whatever other moronic notion some nerd one day woke up with. It is a call to arms for other like-minded researchers to demand of listowners some form of responsibility for the public dissemination of GRATUITOUS DISINFORMATION AND MALICIOUS SLANDERING, designed to hinder the very scientific work which these lists and these little fascist 'contributors' purport to hold in such high esteem. And if these listowners do not listen - then it becomes imperative to expose them, as well as the little fascists who hide behind manufactured 'majorities'. I will not tolerate any fascist to step over me, my work, my partners, smearing everything in his passage and all along claiming that he is performing a 'service' for some beclouded image of humanity! Screw you, Mr. Rothwell!
The smear is a literary technique preferred by the ugly characterological type of the 'bully boy' so well epitomized by Rothwell and other 'professional' detractors and agents of persecution; they divide the world into manicheistic classes and then they smear by association. The public embarrassment and lambasting which Rothwell received from me in 1998 is, in this way, kept alive by further embellishments of the worst type. Here's an example - two years later, on March 17, 2000:
"Correa seemed sincere to me. Not a bit like a fraud. He seems terribly gullible, because he believes all these wild, unreplicated claims made by people like Newman, Moray and Tewari. He was indignant because other people doubt Newman & Co."
What a complete pack of lies Rothwell constructs. In that confrontation I had with him, I publicly stated that, based on my own replications of Newman's experiments employing a motor which David Marett built in accordance with Newman's specifications, I could express a strong conviction - after months of running the Newman machine, and then experimenting with my own modifications in the circuitry - that Newman was in error. I have never made a secret of this opinion, and both Mr. Carrell and Dr. Mallove have heard it on several occasions - going as far back as 1996. About Tewari I have never said a word since, to this day, I am still not sufficiently familiar with any of his work to comment on it. And as for Moray - I have never either defended his work or criticized it. So these Rothwellian 'insights' are nothing more than the crassest of fibs. But let us look at the facts - I did and do defend Joseph Newman's right to pursue his research as he sees fit, without being harassed by militant or mercenary Rothwellian dogs and without having to spend his time and money in courts defending his reputation or prestige, and I also defend Newman's right to be mistaken. Plenty of honest people are wrong every day about anything one cares to think of. And the errors of Newman are good errors, well-intentioned errors. Necessary errors. Moreover, Newman - despite his simplistic beliefs in State, religion and the common Rothwellian 'good' proverbially sought by market forces - will, with all of his mistakes or errors, have undoubtedly done infinitely more for science and knowledge than Rothwell and his clones will ever do when all of their lifetimes are added together!
Most striking is the condescending - and very charitable indeed - manner in which Rothwell always 'feels' for me:
"I figure a guy who takes those claims [of Newman] at face value might be fooling himself about his own work. It was so embarrassing . . . I mean, it's one thing to be open-minded, but to assert they are all correct and all victims of suppression! No standards. No demand for rigor, no skeptical doubts. How can you trust his judgment?"
Aside from the fact that there is not a shred of truth in these idiotic fabrications and gratuitous associations - and that they are as pure an attempt at character distortion and assassination as he could muster - one is left to wonder exactly what twisted judgements the Rothwellian mind employs when it engages in such pure phantasmagoria. Everything that Rothwell imputes to me in these lines is a lie - a crass lie of his fertile imagination - employed in the nefarious hope of destroying my reputation, of avenging his bruised ego from the beating it took that day in New Hampshire. All victims of suppression? He wishes. No standards? But this is rather Mr. Rothwell's specialty: a forked, lying tongue and zero capacity to read, zero patience to make an effort to read and zero effort to try to understand. That's a zero standard, if I have ever seen one! Only the immediate satisfaction of being a boorish loudmouth - as if premature ejaculation were not only the best form of pleasure, but the norm to be sought and imposed on thought itself!
Here is another one of Rothwell's priceless apriorisms:
"As far as I am concerned, all claims by people like Mills, the Correas, the Italian electromigration gang, and even the Hydrosonic Pump are unproven and therefore wrong."
What is this paragon saying? That unproven claims are ipso facto wrong? Does he actually imagine that this makes sense - to anyone?
Here is what this little busybody pundit - this specimen of rachitic anchoritism - needs to realize: that UNPROVEN CLAIMS ARE JUST THAT, UNPROVEN. Only claims that are proven wrong can be called 'wrong'. I'm seriously beginning to wonder whether we should award Rothwell an honorary recycling through kindergarten.
It is this same contorted and distorted logic that he uses to legitimize his ignorant condemnation of Randell Mills:
"If Mills wants to be taken seriously, he could easily assist ten or twenty top laboratories to replicate. I could arrange it this afternoon [Right! More hot bluff from the bully-boy]. They would replicate the energy producing effects, and then I along with ten thousand other people would believe Mills [Indeed, after decrying all institutions, public, commercial and non-profit, our man only believes what he hears on the radio or TV!]. If the experiment is not difficult (with the correct material in hand) [This is the trap Mills avoided - how could such a groundbreaking experiment not be both complex and difficult?], within a few months millions of people would believe him, and his troubles with the U.S. Patent Office would vanish [Here comes the bloody flying carpet again; this guy is a broken record!]. This is a simple, direct, dirt cheap and risk free method of overcoming his problems. This method has been used successfully by countless other innovators and inventors throughout history [...Like Tesla, Reich, Moray, De Forest, Gray, Aspden, with the results we now know...]. If he will not do it, he is either insane or his claims or [the poor sod meant 'are' not 'or'] bunk, or both. I honestly don't care which it is: crazy is functionally equivalent to fraudulent, and both conditions are incurable."
It's a veritable frenzy of identifications or equations that infests the Rothwellian delirium: unproven is wrong, crazy is fraudulent, and so forth. But here, at last, is the clearest of illustrations that these Rothwell- and Park-style judges of knowledge and history are nothing more than the two faces of the very same machine: their own mental confusion is so 'honest' as to make them unable to discern the difference between fraudulent hucksters and those they assiduously label "crazy" simply because "unproven claims" that have never been tested or properly tested must be immediately deemed as being "wrong" or "false" or "insane" or "fraudulent" - since it is all the same. And in this confusion of sameness absolutely everything manages to be dissolved - the real history of inventions along with the paralogical and illogical errors and preposterous free 'advice' of Rothwell and the other clones of Mocenigo.
What does seem to be incurable is the neurasthenia from which Rothwell suffers. To justify this incurability, Freud himself was rumored to have invented the somatic complex of Oedipus...
The little man who refuses to listen: how to make a chorus out of lies. In another intervention (20 Oct 1998) recently brought to my attention, Rothwell lays the ground for his crypto-socialistic defense of the common man. True to form, he kicks it off with his now odiously familiar bully-boy assault, this time on Fleischmann:
"Although I admire and respect Fleischmann for his work, and I have deep affection for him as a human being, I think he should cut the crap and tell us what he knows. I say enlist public support, get the press on your side, or shut up and take what's coming to you."
Notice the customary rabid Rothwellian vengefulness of these words. From his loveless armchair he bellows his right to be fed whatever is the fruit of the labour of others. As someone recently remarked, he not only wants his dinner served to him on a silver spoon, but to have it chewed for him, as well. One can read at a distance how his 'love' of democracy is nothing more than a cover for good old Stalinism - "what's mine is mine, what's yours is also mine". Caramba! What revolting gall - and the Vortex people have put up with this garbage for years? With this degrading maoistic- style hard-line? Here then goes the full text of the rest of his biliary attack:
"During the New Energy Symposium, Correa complained bitterly about the way businessmen have treated him. They backed out of agreements [Not true; only Rothwell's spiritual cousin Huish backed out of a counteroffer during negotiations in 1996 at Denver]; they took a demo system and let it sit six months without testing [Never happened! A total lie!]; they tried to gyp him with unreasonable terms [That's not 'they', but plenty of aspiring anglers just like Rothwell!]. He appears to think he has been singled out for special unfair treatment [Again a lie: read our texts, this problem is approached from a social viewpoint; we are simply instances in point. There are many, many others.]. I told him any businessman has similar experiences. He responded that inventors contribute more to society than other folks [Another famous quote of something that was never uttered. What I said was that inventors and scientists have a social responsibility for what they invent! The malignant distortions that Rothwell engages in are truly worthy of a Mildred Brady]. They run greater risks, so they should be given special dispensation and extra large rewards [Nor was this ever said. If any one cares to read the record, it is Mr. Rothwell who is found perpetually drooling in his postings over the possible 'billions' to be made in the energy field. In fact, any inventor who does not join in the drooling thereby qualifies for the Rothwellian distinction of 'insane'. By the same token, however, I would state categorically that it is a fact that there is neither serious institutional interest nor any financial support infrastructures for the pioneering scientist, since most - like myself - are working entirely on their own time, at their own expense, to break through these arrogant walls of sanctified ignorance - never so well illustrated as through the mouthings of the Rothwells of the world. The personal risk these scientists incur is absolute.]. If society does not want to put inventors on a pedestal, he feels that he, for one, he has the right to withhold the fruits of his genius from society [Of course, I have the right to withhold the fruits of my own work and so does anyone else - but I would never link its exercise to whether or not I was 'put on a pedestal'. Such infantile rhetoric expresses nothing more than Rothwell's own feelings of dejection]. 'The world does not deserve what I have, because people want to steal it from me,' I think he said [More free-style infantilisms fabricated piecemeal by a stupid and malevolent Rothwell]. That irked me. I told him he has a right to withhold the fruits of his labor ['Mighty white of you', as used to be said in certain circles...] that in that case he should stave [sic]. If he contributes nothing, he deserves nothing [Yes, starvation again - the eternal Stalinist fate perpetually wished by Rothwell upon every inventor who does not 'behave' in the manner which he, Rothwell, sees 'fit' to dictate. Since in my opinion it is Rothwell who, until this day, has contributed nothing, should not his own rule apply to him on his own cognizance?]. As for the 'risks' he runs, I know farmers and fishermen who risk their lives to give us the fruit of their labor [Here we go - into the Stalino- workerist discourse!]. That's real fruit from real trees: the kind you fall out of [or at least that's what he does...]. The kind you trim with a chainsaw and maybe cut your hand off when you slip in the mud [All these too, of course, being activities that this 'salt of the earth' slouch regularly engages in. He mows down forests, rolls out the nets, bears fruit baskets, etc, etc. What utter demagoguery!]. Nobody gives farmers or migrant workers special dispensation [Since I was once a migrant worker, this fellow is not telling me anything new]. People steal from them every day [Just like Rothwell goes around stealing my good reputation - and the reputations of other researchers - for his own sinister and obscure intents]. Fortunately for rest of us, they do not go into a snit and stop working [Too bad, perhaps the world could change if a general strike really occurred...]. In his lecture, Correa said he despises the little man -- the common man -- for his constricted thinking and his unwillingness to look at new ideas [See below]. I said the common man is your customer. You are his servant. If you cannot entice him to look at your new ideas and buy your goods, you do not deserve to make a living."
Aside from the fact that this Rothwellian text is simply another of his ludicrous cornball fabrications - what is most striking is that Rothwell's persona is so excruciatingly insecure as to immediately require the hallucinatory companionship of all those toiling labourers, fishermen, and farmers in whose name he pretends to speak - absent, of course, any delegation from them. And were his imaginary neo-feudalist society of slaves to begin determining who did or did not make a contribution to some Res Publica, in order to permit them - or not - to continue to make a living accordingly, who would one suspect would be let go first - welfare workers, fishermen, technobureaucrats, or vacuous pundits like Rothwell who have contributed absolutely nothing to anything. By the looks of it, even the fishermen and welfare workers are already on their way...
No, the entire Rothwell text is riddled with lies, fabrications and falsities. What 'irked' him in that confrontation in 1998 was the notion that Reich and Tesla withheld so many of their findings from the public arena precisely because they lacked any trust in either public or private institutions or in the 'common folk', none of which (just like Rothwell) understood - or would make the slightest effort to understand - de facto and de jure - one iota about those pioneering works. And that I might choose to do precisely the same with 'my' then upcoming work on Aetherometry. I have never asked nor sought to be 'placed on a pedestal' by anyone. If certain others suffer from a sense that what I am good at is somehow to their detriment, then it is they who are afflicted with some kinds of inferiority and equality complexes. This used to be called jealousy, envy, malice, and so on. And those ignoble sentiments are their problem, not MINE - though I now intend to make these irresponsible Vortex diatribes of disinformation and slander with respect to my person and my work Rothwell's problem. I do not intend to put up any longer with such self-interested defamation as that which consistently flows from the poisonous mind of Rothwell with no intent other than to actively conspire against my best efforts. There is a rather specific group of people on Vortex - Douglas Marett, Fink, Quinney, Kooistra, etc - who believed they could have a free day in the sun at my expense, either by attempting to steal my inventions or by gratuitously and recklessly attacking my reputation. They take their cues from band leaders like Rothwell - and should rightfully be exposed for what they are: repugnant little nobodies who attempt to claw their way forward by vampirizing the hard work of others. Huffed puffs. Dust balls. But dust balls that are infective and apply themselves to poisoning just about any and every fair shot at developing novel, pioneering technologies.
In fact, Rothwell's prejudice against Tesla is such that he cannot even understand what others tell him. It is an affliction, to be such a bad reader. A new pair of glasses might not hurt. To a fellow who wrote:
"Who said this was a normal business? Jed is counting the time from Mill's inspiration to try the Ni-H20 cell to present. Try the time from Tesla's inspiration for a polyphase motor to the implementations under Westinghouse's sponsorship."
our bully Rothwell impulsively retorted (22 Aug 2000):
"If Tesla had had one ounce of business sense, it would not have taken so long."
What a compulsory judgmental mania - and always devoid of any reference whatsoever to the factual, historical record! How does Rothwell propose to show that Tesla could have sped up the implementation of polyphase motors by Westinghouse, when Tesla had nothing to do with its day to day management - any more than he had the power to induce Westinghouse, or anyone else, to sponsor and develop his invention - and when long before such implementation occurred, he had forfeited all his rights and the promised millions to provide Westinghouse with the best of chances for that very implementation?
Rothwell's 'yardstick' is the rule of the facile judgement. A veritable addiction, egged on by the sense of having a pliable audience for his degrading spectacles. He does not need (ever) to know the facts. Rather, reality must be made to fit the Rothwellian notion (for he only has one). He's right on one point: there is indeed a pathology at work - though he desperately hopes it will be found outside of himself in those deformed caricatures of inventors and thinkers he systematically conjures up. Why else would Tesla need to have his reputation so stupidly smeared?
Yet, this is the same Rothwell who admits at every junction that he knows nothing about what he so freely talks about - so that no one will dream of really taking him to task. About his understanding of Mills he says (22 Aug 2000):
"I do not understand enough about mass spectroscopy to know what he [Mills] is doing, but I've heard that art is rather difficult and it takes an expert, and there are many ways to get it wrong."
Now, it seems to me that anyone not possessed by a paranoid or narcissistic sense of self (which assuredly excludes many human beings) would simply assume, not being an expert in mass spectroscopy, that there is a good chance that Mills, who is working with the technique, might be one such expert. If so, they would probably keep their ignorant mouths shut about this matter - other than to make well-thought-out questions to Mills. But, as anyone can see, ignorance never prevented Rothwell and other fishwives like him from tooting their horns. They figure that since we're all already in the asylum, they may as well add to the noise and excel at doing so. They might be noticed - and even get a medal.
More Rothwellian lies to Vortex followed on 21 Oct 1998, and this time one can see the contagion at work, and the harm it does to the reputation of any honest researcher: without further ado, a Mr. J. Allan joins the chorus, precisely through an eagerness to automatically believe the Rothwellian lies. Rothwell's posting begins:
"John Allan write [sic] of Correa: I too find it hard to warm to someone speaking lowly of ' common people ', if that is what he said.
I believe that was an exact quote from Correa's talk: 'the little man, the common man.' I do not [have] the audio tapes yet so it may be a little different."
But did he ever correct this false attribution after he got hold of the said tapes? Somebody else did, and Rothwell came back the next day (22 Oct 1998) with:
"That's a marvelous quote from Correa. I disagree with his sentiments, but I am awed by his mastery of English as a second language. (..) I agree with most of this. It is a political problem cause by incomprehension, but it is Correa's job to ignite the imagination of potential customers. If he does not have the time or the ability to do that, he should give a device to Scott Little or to me, we will do it for him. I wonder if he picked up the term 'inventor's disease' from me? He suffers from it himself, and like most victims he does not recognize his own problem."
So he disagrees with my expressed "sentiments", yet agrees it is a political problem... Smart, eh? How he manages to also lend me a little 'sentiment' in all this, surely only Literature enthusiasts will grasp. But does he retract the innuendo about my contempt for the 'common people'? No. Instead, he reiterates his tired diagnostic - thus returning to the emotional origin of his whole agitation: I myself am supposed to be suffering from this Rothwellian confabulation.
Here is the actual quote of what I said about the common man in each of us:
"The problem is a political one, and a problem also of the sheer incomprehension of what is at stake in science, both by the lay people who elect politicians and governing bodies and by established scientists (...) Against this state of affairs, all I can say is 'Balderdash!', for it is in the hands of the common man to do something about it, and yet the problem is precisely the common man, the little man in each and all of us".
And this is what Rothwell somehow manages to misread and misconstrue to mean that I am against fishermen, labourers, farmers, bakers, migrant workers. I supposedly have contempt for them, though my statement was about the "little man" such as it exists within every one of us. What Rothwell really fails to say, since it is simply beyond his grasp, is that I do not care much for so-called democracies - which are always dictatorships of majorities. They really are not any better, and are often worse (like the one that elected Hitler chancellor) than the dictatorships of minorities. So, no, the fact is I have no allegiance to the type of half-baked socialism of the masses which Rothwell peddles for his cult of Money as Reason Supreme. If that is what he means by his insinuations, then he should have the balls to come out and say it before his fellow American countrymen and the world - that he, too, is just another pauvre socialiste. It is a veritable plague these days.
Here is a thread from March, 2002. On March 16, one Fred Epps, another beaver eager for some Correa mud-slinging, suddenly posts a message titled "Correa", in which he asserts:
"I've developed a curiosity about the Correa device and have read all the material I can find -- the patents, the articles in Infinite Energy, conference proceedings and the like. Just tonight I finished reading all comments in the Vort archives about it. The whole thing seems strangely inconclusive. To summarize what appears to be the case:
1) There is a good evidence that the device works. Not conclusive, but good.
2) There were no serious attempts at replication by others. There was a start in that direction by one Jeff Fink, which went nowhere.
3) The Correas made an art form out of shooting themselves in the foot, as so many inventors do, and they have since gone underground. Nobody misses them much.
Does anybody have any disagreement with this? Anything to add?"
And just where and when did this illustrious foot-shooting occur - are we bleeding yet? He wishes. On the contrary - would we be able to speak freely whenever we wanted, or to research whatever we determine to be important, while ignoring the closed-minded voices of the world, if we were not self-funded and totally autonomous? But perhaps that is precisely what really riles up these envious backroom anglers - they are only too conscious of their pettiness and are unable to relax until they imagine they have brought others down to their own sordid level.
How is it that people who are so totally ignorant of my life, have read nothing I have written, and know nothing about my work in a variety of research fields, find the courage to make these resentful judgements about me or about others of whom they know equally little?
And what does Rothwell do with these fellow-anglers at Vortex? He encourages them by appearing to have special access to the communications others have had with us. Thus, for example, he replies to Epps with this embittered little piece of pomposity:
"They are not exactly underground, but they do not communicate with people often. Mike Carrell has been in contact with them from time to time and he may be able to tell us what they're up to. Paulo Correa gave a talk at a conference sponsored by Infinite Energy a few years ago. The first 10 minutes was a rant against people who oppose o-u energy research. It was one of the most excruciating, embarrassing performances I have ever witnessed. I felt like crawling under a table and stuffing cotton in my ears. 'Shooting in the foot' hardly begins to describe it. Perhaps we should transcribe it as a warning to humanity. Honestly, I hate to be associated with such people. I guess it is good that we published their scientific claims... I am glad that Jeff Fink enjoyed the replication and he does not hold it against us. Something that was 'great fun, very dangerous, and a terrific light show' can't be all bad."
The reader may wonder at this point whether what Rothwell describes as an "excruciating, embarrassing performance" is perhaps the same text for which he declared his awe in the above quote from Oct 22, 1998. Indeed, dear reader, it is exactly the same.
Isn't that delightful? This is the same forked tongue that pronounced in his Wright Brothers pamphlet: "You might think that scientists are more sophisticated today and they would never perform such inept 'replications'. Well, think again."
Well, do, Mr. Rothwell, do think again, moron! For here, in the Vortex post I just quoted, you indicate precisely your psychotic approval of the most inept replication I can think of - that of Fink (see below). Stark proof that you have failed to think at all, let alone again!
Indeed, in that post just quoted, Rothwell first attempts to tease Mr. Carrell to reveal something in the nature of gossip about the Correas. Next, he fails to explain why it was that he didn't - indeed - crawl under a table, or, more preferably, into a crack in the floor, when he heard, loud and clear, one of my concluding remarks in that '98 talk:
"Left are only a few more words of harshness for those who dare to psychiatrize the challenge of science and the experience of this challenge by a minority of scientists or investigators and inventors - tell us not that we suffer from paranoia or 'inventor's diseases', tell us not that we do not know how to market our inventions or discoveries - - or make them public in that very private way, and above all, tell us not that humanity deserves this knowledge, our effort and sweat, as a Baal Godhead that swallows up its adepts. Do not insult further our intelligence, nor our courage. If humanity is in rags it is not because it has not had enough time, enough history, enough art, enough knowledge, enough science, enough commodities, to make it intelligent, or to improve upon it. There is something sick in humanity, deeply sick, that prevents us all from deriving the best usages that discoveries, inventions, creations, can be put to. It is this sickness that powers the dominant fictions, including those of accepted science."
Small wonder Rothwell burned with embarrassment, wishing only that he could somehow hide. He recognized himself. But Rothwell does not have the distinction of being the only sick 'commentator' in the field of new physics who has tried to psychiatrize and oedipalize the scientific experience while failing squarely to even remotely understand its discourse. I, for one, in my name, as a scientist and nothing more, do not recognize his - or any other's, for that matter - supposedly 'inalienable' right to do so.
Neither are these ignorant bully-boy assaults Rothwell's invention. Rather, established science has been prone to these dictatorial modes of persecution, which it buttresses with a string of epithets, ever since the days when it began emerging from religion. There is indeed a specifically scientific Oedipus that is traceable throughout the History of Science: epithets of "witchcraft", "jewish science", "insane", "heretical", "pathological science", "inventor's disease", and so on. These are, on norm, followed by other enormities from these self-anointed emissaries of some Baal Godhead or other: "In the name of humanity", "You owe it to the fishermen", "For the betterment of mankind", "In the name of science", etc. As if these Mocenigos ever cared a fig for humanity, the fishermen, the scientists, science or even the planet in whose names they pretend to speak!
If such pronouncements are meant to represent the voice of Reason, then jacobinism has already triumphed - in present-day civil society, no less. And it has. It triumphed by creating this fuzzy notion of democracy where the basest and laziest loudmouth becomes the new reference parameter - for knowledge, for behaviour. A bit like what rap did to music - or the effect of the emerging ganglands in urban centers. A sort of diffuse maoism that has everywhere become impregnated in the minds of very sick men. Every block has now been saddled with its own mini-Stalin and its own mini- Stalinism to boot.
This is the same Rothwell who, from the other side of his brainmouth, wrote (this one on March 25, 1999):
"There is absolutely no hope [Park and Zimmerman] will listen. You can literally shove a paper by McKubre into their hands, but they will not read it. They brag to me that they will not read it! It is a shame they are in a position of power, but in a sense it does not matter. "
If Rothwell finds it a point of pride to parade on Vortex his ignorance and his refusal to read, it should be hardly surprising that those scientists who find themselves "in a position of power" also make a point of not listening or reading. Rothwell may as well admit that it appears to be part of the formal training qua scientists, engineers, technicians. We would be astonished if they even know the titles of the papers they reference or claim to have read - let alone the abstracts or the papers themselves!
If Messrs Park and Zimmerman are who they are and are PAID to do what they do best - DISINFORM - who could possibly hope to silence them or their kind? But people like Rothwell are precisely this same kind, with a difference - they are not even paid to disinform. They are addicted to it - as the pillar of an egomania that drives them to rash judgements and the bitter pursuit of vendettas.
Let me be quite clear. I have never complained about the 'opposition'. I have brought war to it, I have disarranged their ranks and indisposed their vociferous bully-boys, and it is they who complain about me - just listen to their chorus on Vortex. I have no complaints. If stupidity reigns supreme and calls itself reason, science, or the norm, I do not complain about it. When appropriate, I expose its innards. Pitilessly. And that is the simple reason why most people I come across either love me or hate me. And why, if they choose to hate me, their hatred is so all-consuming. And why they have to invent these debile and intolerable delegations from imaginary majorities before whom I 'should' be responsible. These mythical powers to silence others that spring from the modern addiction to soap operas and X-files. A whole folklore of the impotent and the complainants. Building up an imago of some 'me', so that they can then put it down on their own facile terms, shoot at it for target practice. Sort of a spiritualized version of Taliban 'manners'.
One could certainly wonder why, if this ideal society of theirs is indeed so `democratic' and `reasonable', they don't simply exercise their power as citizens and move to remove the Parks and Zimmermans from their "positions in power"? Have courage, Rothwell & Co! Walk the talk you so carelessly dispense.
Since it is still occasionally suggested to me that it is not the entirety of the Vortex forum that is infected with this teratogenic plague of thought, nothing would give me more pleasure than to see Vortex abandoned by all those who still have some measure of self-respect and remain interested in exploring the frontiers of science. I may even suggest to Akronos, if enough people contact us with positive feedback, to create a forum on alternative science and energy, where none of this nonsense - smears, bogus reproductions, rampant misquoting, etc - will be tolerated. A list for those who care to think - even if in error; for those still capable of befriending knowledge, and befriending others who seek it; and who might try to keep their egos in the drawer and only take them out for special occasions. Certainly not a list for low-calibre morons!
The collection of actual quotes from Rothwell and 'friends' assembled on these pages is nothing more than a stark expression of the haunting fears of those who do not know and do not care to know, but nonetheless believe that knowledge should be given to them on a platter in their blessed position of priests or bureaucrats or technocrats, or even consumers or customers. To psychiatrize science in the most ignominious of ways, every fiction is employed.
But, dear or undear reader, do you know what most amazes me? Not that such cheap band leaders and anglers creep up so often in this modern civilization, in all walks of life. But that there are always those who listen to them and meekly FOLLOW THEM to hell.
There can be no doubt that these anglers certainly do recognize each other as members of some secret brotherhood of imbeciles. An example in point is the irrelevant Fink episode (here is a man deserving of his name), about which Rothwell - three years later - still manages to lie. Indeed, the question he should have made was whether or not Fink reproduced anything at all.
Carrell carried out a valiant and gentlemanly defense, not of our work - not per se - but of maintaining an impartial, attentive and honest course to the discussions, and respect for the facts. To no avail. Feeling the pinch, Carrell put it plainly:
"If you're a determined skeptic, you can assume that anything undisclosed is the hidden man that makes it go. On the other hand, it could be hard-won information that will give those mentally prepared an opportunity to duplicate without compensation, while not helping those mentally unprepared in arriving at a correct decision. Vortex is a discussion group, not a jury" (October 2, 1996)
But it is precisely here that the problem lies: the most vociferous members of Vortex behave in all respects as auto-elected judge and jury; and judge and jury by the most mediocre, the least respectful and the basest of criteria.
In fact, those who have the gall to utter the sort of enormities cited here - with so little care about consequences or the vicious harm they cause - are precisely those who are and have been most compromised by the system - its very servants; in general, employees of the most megalomaniacal corporations. Indeed, notice how this clamor for 'openness', 'democracy', 'full disclosure', 'complete reproducibility', is made precisely by and for the benefit of people who are or were - almost exclusively - employees of giant defense-related corporations and contractors, governments and intelligence systems engaged neck-deep with militaristic interests.
Do they also ask their vaunted employer - that corporation or that government - to fully disclose, to them or to the public (not to mention 'humanity'), everything it does - in science, in politics, in dirty tricks? No, of course not. They would never even dream of asking this - let alone of demanding it. But would they demand, inside that corporation or that government laboratory, that others reproducing or verifying their own work do it by the book, with the same circuitry, the same parameters, etc? You bet they would and they do, if they are intelligent and diligent. Would they charge for their time? How else would they survive? Would they give freely to the world of their time and inventions? You bet they wouldn't and they don't. To begin with, they are used to having their work systematically expropriated - for that is the rule of capitalism. What's made on company time, is legally company property. And it's comfortable this way too, because it leaves their hands clean of every and any responsibility. If their corporation or government screws up and gets exposed, they can always say they were 'just following orders' and blame their leaders. The consequences of their inventions and work - regardless of how utterly horrific may be the use made of them - are merely the responsibility of others (most often one never knows who) - which they may call board, party, country or humanity, as it suits them from one day to the next. But at bottom they are always the systemically corrupt institutions they serve, that keep them alive, that butter their bread. These are the engineers and scientists that hide behind leaders, behind laws, behind the cynical calls for openness. Veritable cheer- leaders of a machine gone mad: "in the name of the people".
And what exactly is it that they protect? First, of course, their personal interests - like every one else - except, of course, that inventors and discoverers are judged, by the 'moral' rules of these selfsame sycophants, as not entitled to such pedestrian concerns... But secondly, they protect their companies, the same companies that, in the words of Schaffer to Carrell, will not give them the time of day when it comes to an alternative project - "The Correas probably won't give me one [a reactor], though, and General Atomics (a for profit company) will not give me the time and money to try to reproduce them [the patents]".
There you have it - a candid admission of the truth! Nay more, since General Atomics is automatically excused for its complete indifference - after all, it's run 'for profit' - while the Correas are 'morally' barred from being entitled to even think the word profit. In any case, we have an impasse - that is, if 'we' are to reproduce the Correas and do them one better! It is all clear. For, had Schaffer or someone else succeeded in replicating and modifying the system to some degree, what is it he would likely do - but offer the results of this free labour to the same General Atomics or whatever is his 'home company'?
Isn't that nice - the employees of these giant corporations can exonerate their motherlode, all the while acting as if they were free agents in reproducing and tweaking the patents and inventions of others! And if that's history and 'the way it is', and "tough shit!", then what are these babies complaining about - when inventors attempt to protect themselves in the same exact manner, or even more ferociously or intelligently? Why is it that the Wright brothers are deemed to be paranoiac flakes, but entire corporations and their armies of Schaffers are not? By what and whose rule? Rothwell's? And of course, it's far more agreeable to insinuate that the Correas are too disagreeable to dispense one free reactor than to wonder how many identical requests for free reactors they have received - from all over the world - from other dabblers in the field. Is it the Correas' moral responsibility to make sure that everyone who might one day awaken with a vague curiosity to test a PAGD reactor should be provided with one? I think not. Though, I might add, Alexandra and I have spent innumerable (unpaid) hours attempting to assist serious researchers who have had the courtesy to contact us directly with intelligent questions, who have done their homework ahead of time, and who are making a legitimate effort on their own account to understand our published material.
I frankly don't give a hoot if these Vortexians will find offense with my words. Let them fume, for all I care. Reading these pages, and the pages that Carrell sent me, years back, of prior 'communications' on the Vortex forum, I have to confess that it is even worse than I imagined. It is positively degrading. Not only to me - but to anything that might aspire to the level of intelligent thought.
These gnawing larvae, though they may well constitute a majority, are hardly in a position to dictate morality or manners to anyone who - by his or her own efforts and nothing more!, and with no allegiance to second interests! - has discovered, invented, created, conceived or perceived something new.
Yet, precisely because these larvae are ensconced in power and by power, they have access to the media; they megaphone their way into public forums and, devoid of any compunction, plant whatever gossip and disinformation pleases them. They create little chapels that still others, also like them, manage; and, at the same time, they obsess on the lives of those they love to hate - painting dark pictures of irrationality and intractability where there are only perfectly reasonable conditions being put on the table. And the great majority? It consents to it, in silence. Here and there, some come out of the closet to applaud the camp-Kommandant. They hope not to be mowed down - and maybe even to earn a little special treatment. Safe in the majority. And rarely, very rarely, is anything intelligent said, anything fair or honest written.
Even Mitchell Swartz, whom we respect, suggested we had fudged some figure because he misread the time periods of the resistive curves in the battery protocols and thought they didn't match! He 'thought' that these pre- and post-PAGD time periods were actual PAGD run periods - and concluded that their durations were inconsistent!
There is indeed a social mechanism that induces a generalized psychosis where emotional, sentimental, reactive blinders descend upon the organic eyes of members of the supposed intelligentsia of our society, invite them to error and IMPEDE them from actually reading, with the care and dedication that, after all, monks just yesteryear were capable of committing to religion - where, nevertheless, lunacies of the same order and kind as these ones were systematized by perhaps more habile priests and anglers.
So what gives? What gives is precisely the mass contagion which is always there, in place, to protect the corporate, academic and governmental turfs of these 'professional' scientists. Without the fertile ground of a generalized neurosis, this contagion - and the flaring of its psychotic episodes - would not flourish. Without that sickness, people would be able to read and listen once again. What gives is their fear and hatred of outsiders and pioneers, which suddenly betrays the insecurity, the fragility of the dogmas they believe in.
2. An ox's neck
"...When we are fighting with the enemy and both he and we have become occupied with small points in an entangled spirit, we must always think of the Way of strategy as being both a rat's head and an ox's neck."
M. Musashi, "A Book of Five Rings"
"You don't merely criticize them. You character assassinate them. You are like a bull in a china shop when it comes to science. The important matters concerning what Mills, Reich, Tesla, the Correas, and others have (or may have) discovered and theorized with great difficulty means nothing to you - if it can't satisfy your criteria for being sold on the street as a widget as soon as you can get your hands on it -- whether in the primary market or in the after market."
Dr. E. Mallove to J. Rothwell on Vortex, Nov. 11, 2002
Rooting out the fink
Who is this Fink fellow anyway? The first message Labofex received from him at Revel Technology read: "Looking for a copy of the Orgone Accumulator Handbook. Need Price." Obviously, the wrong fax address. Next came a missive that read:
"Dear Paulo and Alexandra:
The following is a posting I sent to the Vortex L group summarizing the successes and failures I experienced during my initial experiments with the PAGD equipment. I read with great interest your article in IE and got copies of the patents. After serious consideration, I decided to give it a try. I would be happy to receive any comments or advice you could give me.
Jeffrey L. Fink, P.E."
There followed 3 pages in which he described he was "just playing around with this stuff", didn't have a vacuum pump or gauges, but a refrigeration pump, couldn't afford rechargeable batteries, couldn't afford the right size and type of capacitors, couldn't work with glass or afford glass tubes, engaged in what appeared to be extensive VADing of his electrodes, exploded his capacitors, contaminated his pump, altered all the circuits with complete disregard for everything (in this, he is not alone. There have been competitors who shoot their mouths off on whatever pops mindlessly into their heads - like one who proposed to replace the output circuit with a resistive load, or Hal Puthoff, who wanted this idiotic resistive-load test to be "unmercifully pressed" on the Correas!), omitted components whenever he felt like, thought that whenever PAGD was observed he should be collecting excess energy, and so on. Regrettably, such grotesquely insufficient readings and sheer buffoonery in protocol reproduction is common fare in 99% of the messages on forums like Vortex and Naudin's list.
So now this finkish 'fan', proudly and belligerently armed with his hopelessly insufficient understanding and experimental setup, has the gall to write to us and demand that we freely give him comments and advice. He has no concern for the fact that we have never met or seen him, fat or thin; no concern that we might have little time to spare for patently frivolous inquiries, let alone that - were the inquiry a serious one - we might have our own interests to protect and might not want to provide advice for that simple reason; no concern for the experiments themselves or the accuracy of his repetition (how could he gauge whether there was excess energy when he could not even sustain the PAGD regime?? how could he sustain the PAGD with none of the requisite experimental elements??); no concern that he might need to enter into an NDA (which covers precisely UNPATENTABLE KNOW-HOW!) before being made privy to publicly unavailable materials. No, Mr. Fink just knocks and expects to enter - invading the lives of others with the authority of a People's Komissar. After all, the People of Vortex are awaiting the spectacle of Fink's performance - of which this buffoon will even be proud for a brief moment. He proceeds as though inventors like myself were trained dancing bears who are pulled into the circus by the rings in their noses, under the authority of various Finks and the circus populaces who egg them on, because our prestige is at stake, our egos threatened, our future beclouded. But the simple truth of the matter is that the extraordinary world and the vision of the bear was never and will never even be seen - much less understood or evaluated - in the twisted world of the circus tent. Only a fool would imagine such could be possible. And likewise, only fools would imagine that the hoops that Mr. Fink's circus 'PAGD system' failed or succeeded in jumping through bore any relevance to the work embodied in our PAGD reactor, inverter and converter patents. My concern for prestige amongst such fun-fare barkers, therefore, is nil. On the other hand, when it comes to the working truths of our discoveries - painfully wrenched by our own hands - these I bare in my own time, bones and all if need be. If yesterday I was still generous, today I may well use a whip.
This is the same Fink who introduced himself to Mike Carrell, in the latter's own words, as someone who "had some thoughts about alternative designs for the reactor". And that's exactly how these sorts of operations go: you don't have to reproduce anything, just vent any hare-brained ideas you already have about that which you do not understand, have not built and, in fact, cannot build, let alone reproduce. Hopefully, the inventor will jump around implementing every one of these busybody dreams - because you're in a little ensconced majority, because there's a public performance to attend to, because the inventor's ego is supposedly at stake. Idiot Psychology 101.
I am reminded of a prospective investor from the Tandem group who thought that "there should be [notice the Kantian 'should', as if nature were there to make man's life easier!] many easy ways to 'close the loop' " (he should know, right? Just ask your local Radio Shack help desk), and went on to remark that "anything that relies on battery voltages as evidence of excess is prone to errors"! Yet, our battery measurements were (this is a fact!) power measurements of voltage and current under a resistive load - not voltage or open-voltage measurements!!! What could be more straightforward than that, I would still like to know - for that is precisely the simplest long-term integration anyone can come up with! If you trust your DAS more than that, then you're neither a physicist, nor a chemist, nor an engineer. You're a dabbler who believes in fairies. The Vortex 'literature' is filled with this sort of gratuitous blabber; even from fellows who work for well established corporations, like the aforementioned Michael Schaffer at General Atomics, who, in 1996, managed this proof that he did not understand the rationale for the comparison of paired resistive discharge measurements carried out before and after PAGD runs: "Most seriously, the charge pack actually gets charged, instead of continuing to discharge". If it didn't, then the PAGD-driven XS NRG system would not be a converter - for that would show no charging effect of the PAGD run upon the charge pack!!
But back to our story. Not responding to this Fink fiasco as it deserved was indeed an excessive act of charity. So he gets his response now - better late than never. But what Mike Carrell found out when he visited Fink at his home is even better. Carrell related it to us, and on March 17, 2000, wrote about it to the Vortexian mob - in his characteristically kind and gentle manner - in response to Fred Epp's post I quoted above:
"Last year I spent a Saturday, Sunday, and part of Monday with the Correas at their invitation. I visited Paulo's lab and saw a demonstration of the PAGD. The visit was under a nondisclosure agreement which I will honor, but I can say some things in response to this flurry of discussion. On one occasion I also visited Jeff Fink at an early stage of his attempt to replicate the PAGD effect.
> 1) There is a good evidence that the device works. Not conclusive, but good.
Yes, it works. I saw the discharge phenomenon and the input and output pulses captured on his lab instrumentation, substantially as reported in my IE articles.
> 2) There were no serious attempts at replication by others. There was a start in that
> direction by one Jeff Fink, which went nowhere.
There were 'serious' attempts, but without the know-how necessary to evoke the energy yield. Jeff put in a lot of effort, to his credit. When I visited Paulo's lab, it became clear to me that one has to understand the physics rather well to get the exact conditions in the reactor tube which produce the energy gain. There are lots of conditions which give you the light show Jeff saw, without the energy gain. The Correa patents are deep tutorials, but you need a real grasp of the physics to 'tune' the reactor conditions to get what you want.
> 3) The Correas made an art form out of shooting themselves in the foot, as
> so many inventors do, and they have since gone underground. Nobody misses
> them much.
This isn't quite fair to the Correas, and largely reflects Jed's stance with respect to any efforts that do not fit his business models. I can say that it should be possible to make PAGD reactors that will work in the test circuit, but they won't work very long before operation causes the critical conditions to change and the energy yield will disappear, leaving a light show. There is a significant R&D effort necessary to go from the effect to a commercially usable system. It is not as simple as it appears, and has nothing to do with the structural fragility of the reactors which have been pictured.
As to why the necessary connections and sponsorship have not occurred, I see no merit in discussing it in this forum. I understand Paulo's viewpoint, it is not shared by others, but he is not acting in an irrational manner, given the parameters of the big picture he sees. He was generous to share that with me, but it will remain private. It may be that his work, both theoretical and practical, may fade into obscurity. He understands that as a possibility."
So, there you have it - Carrell saw both demonstrations - Jeff's and ours (the horse's mouth) - and what did he conclude? Let his words speak for themselves.
Moreover, Carrell had already told Fink:
"For practical reasons, you made alterations in the protocol that may or may not be significant. In any case you didn't replicate the Correa device as given. Given the general acknowledgement of the trickiness of the [pulsed] abnormal glow regime, can you attest with certainty that you got it right? (...) I don't intend this as a criticism of you or your working method. I'm only trying to find out if indeed the Correa idea has been independently tested and what the results were. At this point I would have to say that there have been two replication attempts, one by a person [Douglas Marett] who has a [beef] against Correa, which showed excess energy, and another which modified the test setup, which didn't."
Of course, the so-called 'verification' by Douglas Marett is simply not credible, since he employed a resistive method and did not even bother with the impedance of his scope. And so is Fink's negative verification - even if he did manage to contemplate PAGD pulses (which appears highly unlikely but is not altogether impossible), since the latter can be and are observed without any extraction of excess power.
But "all this doesn't matter", says Jed Rothwell, in his usual abusive and mantric fashion. Whatever Carrell says is 'irrelevant' - even if lately Rothwell has started to consider it 'interesting'.
Frankly, I fail to understand how Mike managed to put up with this Rothwell pathogen for years, or how Gene was ever able to tolerate him as a partner. The man is a veritable virus - contaminating everything right from the start; his revolting insistence on his 'right' to be 'fed' (information) concomitant with his perpetually irritated state of personal insult when the 'feeding' occurs (since he is admittedly not equipped to understand any of the scientific information 'fed' to him), pre-empts even the natural desire of every scientist to communicate possible findings for thoughtful review. The man is rabid. What he inspires is an insurmountable desire to give him nothing, ever. Save spit on his face.
I will tell you, however, what made me write this long exposé of the most sordid of sordid characters I have yet encountered in my long life. It was actually Fred Epps: the fact that, while reading through this seemingly endless sea of vindictive garbage, I saw someone, or some people, turn around - late, but late is better than never. And by 'turn around' I mean to begin to think for themselves and find their own side without being systematically intimidated by the local yard-bully. As Fred told Rothwell -
"I don't have as high expectations of human behavior as you do, apparently. Selling books to the public all day, I would love to have Paulo come in and 'rant' about his research. It would be the high point of my week :-)
> I am glad that Jeff Fink
> enjoyed the replication and he does not hold it against us. (Assuming he
> learned about from us.) Something that was 'great fun, very dangerous, and
> a terrific light show' can't be all bad.
The question is whether he actually DID a replication, or just a similar experiment."
Not much, I know, but at least it is not Rothwellian froth, nor is it flaccidly carried away by it. That suffices plenty. It is not hope - but a glimmer of resistance. An island of possible sanity.
Mike Carrell's evaluation of our work and business model
Mike Carrell can confirm that I have never asked him to defend us or to treat our work other than as a fair and impartial observer. In this spirit of serious and educated inquiry, I strove to answer - with as much candor as I can or could muster - any and all of the questions he formulated. Yes, it is true, Alexandra and I developed a great fondness for him. Unlike rabid anchorites, we do make good friends for life - even serendipitously - out of what may have begun simply as impersonal business arrangements. And, incidentally, what came to pass between us and Mike Carrell is connected both to Rothwell's actions, and the actions of others also intent on destroying Gene's reputation. Be that as it may, Alexandra and I are very lucky to have, and to have had, such friends. It is our great privilege.
I owe Mike and Gene a great debt of gratitude for having been impartial and always honest in all of their interventions - in all that they have done and said. On the other hand, I recognize no integrity whatsoever in Rothwell or in his incessant attacks on our work and the hard work of others. What I plainly see is that his motivation is both shallow and personal - no matter how swollen his occasional chorus may be.
Mike Carrell, on Oct. 12 1998 (20:53:36), stated:
"Jed's coments on Correa's views of the problems of getting funding of the new technology must remain Jed's own. My own extensive conversation with Correa over the years gives a different aspect.".
Two years later, as already mentioned, Mike would visit our lab and see for himself an open box demonstration of the PAGD. In situ calibrations of our DAS and oscilloscopes were made. Real-life pulse sampling was conducted. Charge was observed to charge the Charge Pack, as claimed. Yes, as with every demonstration, there were certainly limitations. Mike did not, for example, observe long-term resistive discharges, which requires far more time than was available during our meeting. Even though Mike has been under NDA with Alexandra and I, given the gentlemanly qualities we have come to recognize in him independently of any differences that might stand between us with respect to other matters, he may freely enunciate those limitations as he sees fit, when he sees fit. To our minds we have certainly proved to him that the PAGD is real and replicable and measurable. We also gave him a demonstration of the Aether motor, then in one of its early stages.
But did Rothwell follow Carrell's advice and refrain from jumping to ever more inane conclusions? Did he even pause to realize that the inverters were essentially rectifying the pulsed output and thus that they had to charge the same secondary battery that was being discharged - hopefully with a manageable time lag? Did he ever appreciate any of the fine problems that pioneer scientists, or routine scientists just as well, are confronted with every day?
NO, to all questions. Being neither an engineer nor a scientist, Rothwell is nonetheless imbued with the sanctimony of an establishment that has proudly reduced all understanding to a mere matter of engineering - which, by definition, must be simple - and where both engineers and scientists are very much accustomed to shirking any of the social responsibilities their work might otherwise demand. Yet, there is nothing simple about feats of engineering - from Roman aqueducts to controlled nuclear fission to obliging a thermonuclear device, or a `cold fusion' one, to cough out energy in excess of breakeven. So why should the PAGD be an exception - so simple and sweet that even a Literature bachelor, like Rothwell, could experiment with it in his spare time? And if engineering is not endowed with such elementary simplicity, why should I, and not nature, be blamed? And if grasping and exploiting the functions which an adequate engineering must address requires an effort on the part of the prospective student of the art, should one not blame Rothwell for his cultivated lack of talent to understand and lack of patience to learn and perceive?
So how does Rothwell justify his rabid attacks and ignorant provocations? Simple, he just claims to speak in the name of an entire world grown tired and cranky, having been too long deprived of its rightful overunity dinner. It's all so terribly simple and straightforward in Rothwell's delusional world of invention - there are no scientific or technical difficulties, no need for R&D, no problems of scaling, no legal or financial intricacies; money will miraculously burst up from some virgin spring, it will gush out once kits start floating around - and, thankfully, no money or development is required for the perfect kits that will effortlessly usher in the energy revolution in physics. And if by any chance the miracle should fail and the magic fountain should refuse to be conjured up, then the Zimmermans and Parks are exonerated...:
"Paulo Correa, Mitchell Swartz and many others have claimed they have high-power cells that work on demand or nearly on demand. If they would demonstrate these devices and sell development kits, they would instantly silence people like Zimmerman, and they would be inundated with development capital. Instead, they choose to keep their research secret while they complain about the opposition, so this tragic fiasco is as much their fault as Zimmerman's." (Thu, 25 Mar 1999 07:48:11)
Yes, yes, Paulo Correa and Mitchell Swartz should abandon all their ongoing research efforts and devote all their time, finances, mental and physical resources to becoming 'champions of the people', providing demonstrations on demand, at their own expense, to all the Finks and Rothwells and Maretts of this suffering 'humanity' who cannot even be bothered to begin to minimally inform themselves. Free of charge, for the people have the same rights as the insurance agent Seraphin Lampion - one of Hergé's incomparable creations - when he moved his entire extended family into the castle at Moulinsart. He wasn't a squatter, he just needed to sell some insurance and offer a little 'protection' in the process. Why is it, we could answer in turn, that these brave champions of the fishermen and their fishwives don't just roll up their sleeves and get their hands dirty, this time not by fishing cod or plucking apples from very 'real trees', but by studying, reading, making intelligent questions in this field in which they feign so much interest? And then - pronto! - they could proceed to selling development kits that would spring up overnight! - since these Homeric champions could make them easily in their spare time in their basements. You see, this way they would defend us from the Parks and Zimmermans and silence them once and for all, and they would have so much money they would not know what to do with it.
Mike Carrell who, with a much better grasp of the physics and the technology, for a while also thought along the lines of an easy way forward, later fully grasped the need for specifically focused R&D when he saw our systems at work. Rothwell undoubtedly knows that, for years, the organization in which he used to be a partner had searched high and low for funding adequate to our project. He likely knows, from the email discussions inside that organization, of the proposals Alexandra and I have made regarding the search for sponsor funding. And it was within that organization that Mike Carrell wrote this evaluation sent by e-mail to Ed Wall and Gene on Oct. 26, 1998:
"I am very pleased with the outline Paulo has provided. I think it balanced and appropriate.
I might note that it is even Rothwellian (to coin a term). It is the paradigm breaker. What I read into this is that Paulo has been properly reluctant to distribute working PAGD systems to curious potential competitors - without a substantial operating base and momentum of his own organization. Given such a base, I think 24 - 30 months is reasonable to do enough development work to produce a kit which will reliably demonstrate the PAGD energy gain to technical or semi-technical users, and the Bow center would be one of them. It can generate cash flow.
I'm pleased with the element of publication and dissemination, which with the educational kit can generate the attention necessary to create an anticipatory market for the later developments. I read into this also that Paulo is confident enough that with the financial base, he will be able to run fast enough to stay ahead of all competition that may arise from others getting educated by the kits. With the paradigms fractured it shoud be possible for Paulo to get funding for the other projects.
My instincts - for what they are worth - tell me that we are in a green light mode. I think the series of milestones will give benefactor/investors reasons to believe that there are concrete objectives to be accomplished which are of themselves commercially viable, but also point to far-reaching transformations in our understanding of the world.
We now only need the honest benefactor/investor and cheer Gene in his search."
How then can Mr Rothwell, farceur et inquisiteur, with any legitimacy arrive at his noxious, slanderous and false conclusions regarding us, our work, our aims, and our business conduct? He cannot. Instead, he lies and he invents, and he disparages what he is loath to even attempt to understand. He, who claims to be so rich in both insight and dollars - and so ostentatiously eager to push the 'cause' of new energy forward - has never once sought to come to our lab, on his own two legs, to ask for a demonstration under NDA, or to offer to provide us with support should what he sees confirm our published claims. He would far rather consume himself with hatred for my rejection of his shabby 'thesis' of 'Inventor's Disease'. Poor sod, who now stands exposed for all he is.
Very recently, Mike wrote to Vortex rebuking some of the wild fancies of Rothwell's - and suggested in his post that there was a condition I put to negotiations which brought them to a stop. In Mike's words (May 16, 2002):
"Many individuals and groups have approached the Correas to negotiate arrangements for development, including the Israeli government [he means IAI] (as noted in the Aspden Opinion) . All these have fallen through for reasons I won't discuss here. I can say from my own observation that the road from the phenomenon I saw to a commercially useful system is difficult and expensive, as it is with every CF phenomenon now visible. Gene made a sincere effort to bring investors to the table, but the Correas put a condition on the negotiation that was unacceptable."
Having been made aware of this post, the next day I called Mike on the phone, to inquire what this 'unacceptable condition' might have been - for I myself had no such recollection. His memory was that I had requested a letter of intent as a precondition for further negotiation. Mike couldn't recall the instance, and neither could I - but of note is that such letters are very much standard fare in high-stakes negotiations. Of further note is that even the letters of intent which Alexandra and I have requested have not been aprioristic legal documents. In all of the negotiations we have been a party to, we have always sought a business model that would accommodate the conditions of both parties. If a letter of intent was at any time suggested, it certainly was not until negotiations had substantially progressed - and I do not recall Gene's and Rothwell's organization ever having come up with an investor who went that distance. We have never asked anyone to sign a pre-prepared form-letter of intent - and certainly not prior to negotiations. Indeed, the letter would always reflect whatever stipulations the sponsor would deem essential. Mike knows this. Gene knows this. Uri knows this. Even though such a condition might be unacceptable to a given prospective investor, it is in no way unreasonable or unacceptable per se. But this is precisely the malignant insinuation that Rothwell seizes upon in order to 'explain' why the PAGD has not yet been commercialized. His absolutely groundless allegations of irrational business conduct are invoked for the sole purpose of attempting to discredit any and all of our ongoing efforts.
To make this perfectly clear, what we asked for is precisely what the Wright brothers - and a million other inventors - have asked for. A simple letter of intent. An eminently reasonable request. And it is about time that all scientists do the same, and stop selling their efforts short or free of charge! For what proof of good faith does an inventor have other than precisely the guarantee that, if the sponsor is TRULY interested, he/she/it will follow through beyond the costly and time consuming demonstrations and extended testings - during which much critical know-how is imparted - with a commitment to move forward to the much talked-about marriage which has at heart both the inventor's and the sponsor's best interests?
After all, frontier technology is not found in shop-windows! Nobody but a Mocenigo or an angler with a specific hidden agenda would object to this. All the more so, when the sheer vulnerability of individual inventors in the face of the social and institutional forces of our society is so patently obvious.
Business, after all, is supposed to be all about gauging risks. Why should scientists and inventors have to run the entire gauntlet of risks, while businessmen, middlemen, Burnham's managerial class, or even generals, are only supposed to accept the sure things in life?
Characteristic of a certain type of disturbed individuals are the fits of near-lucidity to which, from time to time, they are prone. It is the presence of those moments that gives one the impression that such individuals live with insoluble contradictions and yet already know how to resolve them. On the 21st of October 1998, still under the shock of the '98 confrontation with this Paulo Correa, Rothwell could still admit that -
"I would not trust public institutions, government bodies, 'not for profit organizations' that supposedly act as mediators, 'Nature' magazine, or any other institution. They are all run by people, and people can be corrupt, evil, stupid, ineffective, or just plain wrong. Non-profit organizations are no more ethical than corporations. They are necessary because some social needs are not met by commercial organizations. Give any organization the power to regulate CF -- give it any say in the matter -- and it will be corrupted (Acton's dictum)."
Pause for a moment to realize the enormities that Rothwell utters without any second thoughts, even in his flashes of quasi-lucidity: He trusts no public institutions, no corporations or non-profit organizations because they are all corrupt. But how and why are they corrupt? The simplistic answer he gives is, because they are all run by people, as if human nature was corrupt by nature, and as if they could be run instead, say, by squirrels. I wish.
Yet, in the case of the Correas, it is not those governments and corporations with which they have dealt that could have been "corrupt, evil, stupid, ineffective, or just plain wrong". No, it must be the Correas. Ain't that curious?
Rothwell is fond of "justifying" this very selective skew which he reserves only for us, Mills, Shoulders and Bearden, by offering phony historical "lessons" in which he unfavorably and indiscriminately compares what Mills or we are doing to the success of the telegraph or the transistor or aviation or Relativity or the Internet. Kuhn himself would have a conniption. There are no parallels whatsoever between these events. The simplicity of the telegraph (and its role for the Signal Corps in the conquest of the West) and the transistor are in contrast to the complexity of the technological problems that faced aviation, and these technologies were all introduced by the pressures created by State and capitalist warfare. As for the Internet, how long did the technology exist in the hands of the military establishment? It hardly compares to the telegraph and the transistor, and none of them can serve as useful "lessons" when it comes to technologies such as ours or Mills'.
It's ultimately the simplistic view of things that bully-boys make such a big fanfare about. I guess it's their method of gathering 'knowledge' - they figure that if they shout their miscomprehension and falsities loud enough and no one dissents, they must be on the right track. Rothwell has even said as much: "I win by default."
No, what he has hard won is this kick in the pants.
The manufacture of a Vortex mob
In a message to W. Beaty as list-owner of Vortex (on 28 Jun 1995), Rothwell advises him on how the list should be run:
"I presume that if someone showed [up] and started flaming people, you could kick them off, couldn't you? (...) I do object to having to wade through disruptive comments discussions of politics, hot fusion and other irrelevant topics. (...) Does it cost you money to expand the subscriber list?"
Yet, I ask: what else are these interventions of Rothwell's but inflammatory and disruptive? Is Beaty, then, a Buddhist? Or just a pushover? Or is he a silent party to the rampant mud-slinging and slandering that regularly takes place on his list?
Perusing the Vortex archive is a study in the workings of the power of a mob. Having reviewed these trashy interventions spanning over six years, I must take off my hat not just to the gutless list-owner who has consistently shrunk from correcting obviously scandalous, disgraceful, stupid and inflammatory behaviour, but also to others on the list who have remained silent in the face of all these little fascisms of innuendo, falsifications, disinformation regarding myself, my work and that of my partner, Alexandra - and many other researchers as well. Didn't Beaty think that this would reflect on him and some day come home to roost? Yes he did - that is why he chose the sneaky way of allowing others, like Marett and Rothwell, to do the dirty work.
Mobs are not very complex phenomena. They are a loud 'majority' in 'action' that typically hides behind a know-it-all bully-boy, whom others - with the means to do something about it, like Beaty - close their eyes to. It is always instructive to learn from nazism: didn't the capitalists who financed Hitler (for it was the capitalists, O Rothwell!) say that he wouldn't be around for long and was a necessary evil in the meantime? Likewise Beaty - he has made this forum and he is responsible for it, like it or not.
As for the mob: whatever the bully barks, the crowd follows - first one, then another, and finally the whole herd moves as if in panic. Recently even Douglas Marett converted to Leopold Infeld's doctrine of the ORAC and reneged his Reichianism. Their patent collective fear of my, and Aetherometry's, "rising star in Infinite Energy" - in Kooistra's words - had clearly been so great as to permit their unification, their chorus, to one man, as if they were performing together Beethoven's IXth for the ears of the world.
The bully's modus operandi is to create a case where there is none, so that he can hold the power of a chorus - "Correas could silence their critics by just revealing their secrets", "Germans will have jobs again once we get rid of the Jews", "If they showed all of their know-how a red carpet would unfold to their door", "If all people were believers in Christ [or Mohammad, or whatever], the world would live in harmony". And so on. All these mental ready-mades that our dear Duchamp would abjure. These are the demagogues of the quick fix. The peddlers of mental plaster. They, too, have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.
Once the case appears to have been created, you enlist a mob - typically, for starters, buy one or rent one, though with a bit of luck, you might get one for free. Vortex is the ideal ground. Once the mob becomes pliable in the hands of the bully, then it's time to direct it at the targets. And if the targets don't give away their possessions and bare themselves naked, then the mob cleanses the ground with fire, leaving so many lifeless bodies behind. The bully has done his job, the inoculum succeeded as contagion. Little wonder the Roma traveled in boats on wheels and voted their lives to perpetual nomadism!
That's right - Rothwell is just another bully-boy in search of a case and a mob to go with it, to make himself appear in some manner self-important.
At the same time, one should understand that some form of anxiety eats away at these bully-boys from within. When Scott Little, in turn, downsized Rothwell to insane, the latter equivocated (13 Apr 1999):
"We do our best we can with limited resources. I do not see how anyone can critisize [sic]. Okay, it is foolhardy, obsessive or quixotic perhaps, but not insane. (...) [Les Case] has plenty of money so he could easily farm out the work, and he realizes that he would instantly attract millions of dollars in investment capital if he succeeds, but he does not act on this knowledge. These are symptoms of the Inventor's Disease. This is typical obstinate, self-destructive behavior. I can diagnose the problem, but I cannot cure it. Anyway, compared to Mills, the Correas and many others Who Shall Remain Nameless, Les Case is a paragon of good thinking and positive action. At least he does not snarl at people who want to give him money! He may succeed despite his limitations. All we can do is wait, and hope."
Rothwell knows how to diagnose disease in others and even in himself - but reserves for others the epithet 'insane' and for himself 'not insane'. Unfortunately, he is just as unable to cure himself of his own obsessions and foolishness as, by his own admission, he is to cure anyone else of their alleged insanity. So why should the 'world' revolve around Rothwell's quixotic obsessions, or his tortuous anxieties about being certified insane, or, for that matter, around his rabid judgements? All that revolves around him is the Vortex chorus of spastic experimenters who follow Sinatra and do it their way.
In fact, in that 1998 meeting, there was a representative of the US Navy who also approached me right after my lecture, and, over the course of my interaction with him, became quite upset, essentially because (1) he could not understand why I could not feed the reactor output to the input (!), and (2) because he could not understand why I would not give the US Navy a blackbox (some box it would have to be!!) that he could show to the brass without the Navy having to execute our NDA. I told him what is only too obvious - since my patents are public, why wouldn't the Navy simply reproduce them? And if they need my services or know-how, why don't they offer to pay for them and execute our NDA? Why would I want to provide a blackbox demonstration when Alexandra and I have patents and have made the technology public? And if I didn't have those patents, why would I want to give away a blackbox (even if all the circuitry were to fit in one box, not to mention the vacuum system and batteries!), when the first thing that any smart ass would do is try to pry open its secrets? Can any inventor or scientist consider such propositions as being serious? As being anything other than veiled insults? Yet, the fact is, I did not get mad - this fellow did. But I might just as well have snarled.
You see, serious sponsors are rarely possessed by these immediatisms, these apriorisms, these moralistic prejudices, these anxieties of bullies and anglers. That is the plain truth. I have been sponsored as a journalist in my teens, sponsored in my training as an Injured Workers Consultant in my early years in Canada, sponsored in my M.Sc. and Ph.D. studies, selected amongst the top 30 Canadian students in the field of Oncology to attend an NIH-sponsored specialty course, sponsored by friends to give private talks; and whether institutional or personal, these sponsors never treated me or approached me in the demeaning ways that Rothwell suggests all inventors should accustom themselves to accepting.
In Denver, in 1996, Reed Huish (who was then fairly advanced in negotiations with Labofex), at a dinner attended by his partner, by Dr. Aspden, and by still a third party, also lost his temper with me (as a kind of negotiation tactic - who knows). Do you know why? Because, so he claimed in a loud voice, he already had three other free- energy inventors "in his pocket" (sic, which he demonstrated by insertion of his hand in his coat pocket), and they were not costing him the 12 million I was asking to develop the PAGD technology, but $50k each per year. What was so good about our technology - he demanded to know - that he couldn't get from those others, at a much cheaper cost? I presume, by now, he might have had that question answered.
I initially thought Reed Huish was a serious candidate. But his actions revealed him to be just another bully-boy. Suffice it to say that I do not blame those scientists - they got what they could get, and if they were to clean Huish out, it would have been on his own merit or account. But I did not snarl, not at that dinner. I just wished him good luck, stunned as I, and everyone else at the table - including his partner - was by his performance.
Funny, isn't it?, that these anglers and middle-men who are essentially poseurs - for they do lack the capital, the power, to push any pioneering energy system forward, and that is the ultimate source of their anxieties - would be so willing and ready to view scientists and inventors as primadonnas, when it is they, bully-boys, who behave as indecently and carelessly as injured Southern belles. Obviously, it is the essence of these angling bullies to squeeze all they can from the scientists or inventors, to intimidate them from the get go, to play on any despair they might perceive.
So I have a reputation that I do not put up with this trash. That suits me well enough.
All this serves to show that those I might indeed have snarled at were never serious about sponsoring our work to begin with! If Mr. Rothwell can substantiate his allegations that I snarl at investors - in what concerns me - he should. It is, after all, or it certainly should be, his responsibility to stand by what he writes. Let him give public evidence and cast another one of his stones, but this time with substance and better aim. If he doesn't, then that will stand in this record as one more reminder that he should simply sit down and shut his ugly, malignant trap. Bully-boys have never intimidated me. When I was younger, I even broke the teeth of a few. Good ol' days.
How do we know the basic tenet of mob-formation? By its results in the smallest grain of wheat - the least important, like one Keith Nagel, who wrote on 2 Jun 2002, that the Akronos site has 'too much rhetoric' mixed in with science and technology. It is an aseptic constatation, worthy of inmates who have become used to the white barren walls of the asylum we have turned culture and knowledge into. The fear of the philosophical and political consequences of science is indeed the greatest fear of the mob, identified with a clinical eye by Nietzsche in Beyond Good and Evil as the 'revolution of the Chandala'. Listen to this grain of wheat blown by an irascible wind:
Gene - "Oh, please ... you can screen it [the political and philosophical 'rhetoric'] out if you try!
Keith - "Yes, of course I can. But I'm suggesting that because it's there, it puts off many potential 'customers'."
Who are these customers that are afraid of the political consequences of their investments (the ones they never make, et pour cause!) and who squirm at the 'revolutionary' nature of forefront technologies? You don't see the people in the biotech industry relenting from their pursuit to clone entire human beings, do you? And if it is the political consequences which in fact do keep investors out, then should not society, so open and ample, so learned and indisposed to making rash judgement, so democratic in one word, consider what it is that its very structure condemns it to miss? If the answer is no, effective and lucid, then, O Keith, O grain of wheat in the wind, upon inheriting the earth you have done with it according to the exact height of your smallness. Yet, just like so many other grains, this Keith is not a bad person, an evil individual; he even recognizes the reality of venture capital:
"Yes, these folks [VC] are interested in turning a buck plain and simple, so research type projects are a hard sell."
But what Keith does not grasp is how VC is structured in layers that are designed to select, more and more, rash, one-product implementations of shoddy science which make enough capital on speculation and hype to keep a company, and all the anglers who got in for the ride, alive for as brief a period as possible. Does this Keith have, in fact, any conception of the real world, where thought, historical and scientific, is performed on a daily basis by NASA and IBM and Texas Instruments and so on? Does he understand this - and have any grasp of its complexities?
No. Instead of reading my work and that of my partner and collaborators, Keith believes it is our strategy that attracts bad VC. No, Keith dear, our policy has made sure that no bad VC can latch onto our work, and we have spent many thousands of dollars on lawyers to do so - to screen out anglers and promoters and beasties, so that we did not loose our time and could, instead, put together an important body of work that, in our humble opinion, gives little fish like you a chance still not to fry on the altars of stupidity. If only you read! If only you studied! If only you stopped your whining! If only you were as humble as you suggest I should be! If only, only, you desired, O little Keith, to understand nature and life, from the bottom of your heart and the openings in your head!
It is about time that the little grains of wheat and their sowers learned the humblest of lessons - that there's nothing hidden anywhere, but that one cannot hope to encounter it by waiting for Godot or the silver spoon one should have been born with, as someone on Vortex, I believe, lucidly quipped to Keith.
A mob is a collection of ugly characters, manipulated by at least one bully-boy, who vent their hatred, their frustrations, their venom as if it were a theatrical performance we should all have to watch. Cowing is therefore critical for this sort of street spectacle. The troupe cows the spectator, and makes sure he or she tows the line. The Vortex mob indeed validated Gene's prediction of June 2nd, 2002:
"I do not view Vortex as a particularly good discussion group for Aetherometry -- although maybe I'll be proved wrong on that."
No Gene, you were proven right. And you convinced us that indeed there is a great need for a very different kind of Internet forum, one that eliminates the possibility of these plagued busybodies ever having access to the microphone. One that lets those who have something important to say, do so without the sordid fear of being lynched by a College of Orgonomy, its renegades, the Rothwell acolytes, their established peers, and little grains.
This Keith personage was also eager to let the Correas know that, on some forum not accessible to the public, Mike Carrell was saying interesting things about the Correas. Dear Keith, whatever differences there might exist or have existed between us and Mike, Mike has been and is a Gentleman. All that you have accomplished by 'exposing' Mike Carrell in this manner was to show, to anyone who cares to see and read, how Mike is clear and to the point:
"The experiments with the Orgone accumulators are quite simple -- deceptively so -- and are subject to subtle interpretation. Carelessly done, you will see nothing. The PAGD experiment is deceptively simple and more than one person has tried unsuccessfully to duplicate it. You see, Keith, doing this work requires knowledge which is both broad and deep and requires significant effort to make it 'simple' to do."
Warnings to mobs are like spiked T-bone steaks to dogs. Do they listen? No, they don't - and are proud of it; instead, they vie for the puck. They seek to embarrass us, and to embarrass Mike with us. Tough luck. If I've ever seen a tough cookie, Mike is one. He knows darn well what he has seen, and the artistry it took to make it flow smoothly.
Keith, O Keith, instrument of a mob that sharpens your point!
And again, with a wisdom that would probably make even the most placid monk proud (grin), I must say that our Keith, small wheat as he might be, is not bad, not evil, not devoid of traces of life. Just notice how well-founded my contention is:
"I suppose the thermocouples could go in the same location but his using of a full immersion thermometer suggests Gene was measuring the avg temp across the entire length of the unit? Seems like a better place to put the sensors would be inside the boxes themselves."
But that's precisely where they were placed, and not only there, O Keith! Inside, above and outside. You see, now, why I pity this Keith; for he wants the right thing, he just lacks the money to buy the information he needs in order to find out that the right thing he wants has already been performed by us.
Keith would be on our side, and not on the side of the mob, if only he had money, if only his parents had left him an inheritance, if only the government had provided freely for his need to know. But since none of this has happened or does happen, Keith is stuck with his ignorance, the mere echolalia of the plague master.
The real reason why little wheat like this pops up to claim the earth the meek have raped (oh yes) and inherited, is that nobody of stature, or intelligence, or simple down- to-earth courage, confronts, with facts, and relentlessly (like a New Model Army song would) the stupidity, the malevolence, the error and the acephalic mysticism of these crypto-scientists - within and without the establishment - who are neither scientists, nor engineers, nor thinkers, nor philosophers. Just everyday, ordinary fascists. Pecking hens following the big prick around.
Oh yes, these proletarians know my language here, and why it is so down to their very level. If they don't like it, then they should contemplate the free hand they have taken with judging the lives of others - who never harmed them. And if they lose their heads in the process, their heads could never have been of much worth to begin with. Amen!
Rothwell on Rothwell's prejudices and judgementality
Admittedly, Rothwell is a singularly boring subject. He is riddled with these impulsive prejudices. His 'landmark' article The Wright Brothers and Cold Fusion gives innumerable unabashed examples of his dogmatism - for whose claims, of course, he never provides proof. What else is new?:
"To introduce a new technology you must fight two groups of people: the scientists who oppose it and the scientists who invent it. (...) After battling with the establishment for five years, [the Wrights] began acting like paranoid flakes."
This, like the proverbial double-bind of Oedipus, is the Rothwellian double-bind - in which, incidentally, only scientists (why only scientists? Ask Rothwell!) can or do play a role. This must be a man who, when experiencing an urge to defecate, goes, instead, to a restaurant to consume a double meal. A man whose proclaimed best method of introducing a new technology is to essentially kill the inventor's motivation. Yes, the Wrights were geniuses, he says, but their mistake he distills down to this:
"The Wrights spent 3 years trying to peddle [!] their machine to national governments, getting nowhere. They asked for no down payment, but they demanded a written guarantee that the customer would pay for a successful demonstration. That may seem reasonable, but not to a customer who thinks your machine is impossible and you're crazy."
Some logic, hum? They were geniuses and they had a real machine, product, commodity, call it what you want - yet they were peddlers and peddling; notice the deprecatory language to which Rothwell is addicted. Even those he admires are, in his view, flakes and peddlers. Next, notice that the letter of intent the Wrights asked for - payment for a successful demonstration - is eminently reasonable. Though not, of course, for a very strange kind of customer: one that does not believe in you (the inventor), who thinks that what you claim is impossible and that you are crazy! Pardon me, but is that the kind of investor that the Wrights 'needed'? In fact, is that the kind of investor any inventor needs? Does Rothwell regularly buy stock in companies whose potential products he deems impossible and crazy? Maybe he does...
Rothwell, in this simple passage, proves precisely that the one consumed by disease and paranoia is not the inventor, not the Wrights, but these stilted persecutory agents of a race of crocodiles that eats its young; these free agents of a State in Spirit who, though ready to pronounce anathema, pose as being interested sponsors or friends at heart - and yet seek nothing else but the Judgement of God. People exactly like Rothwell himself.
The inescapable conclusion one is led to by the irrational logic of these brash Rothwellian judgements is that, at the end of the day, the earth, nay, the world, must turn around those who were never either customers or sponsors, but... merely anglers. Only anglers need to steal and kill the goose that lays the golden eggs. Only anglers have to fight the inventor as much as the establishment. For it is their survival as crass middlemen, as shoddy promoters, that is at stake. You see, they never, to begin with, had either intelligence or money to invest (though if they did, they would still preferentially invest someone else's money); and, to end with, they never actually make any contribution to anyone or anything, let alone study, invent or create anything. They are barren souls - and they indeed need a socialist society in order for their kind to find approbation and to be, at last, elevated - precisely by being allowed to stick their Pinocchio noses into everyone else's business. A Pinocchio-Marett here and a Pinocchio-Rothwell there - fabricators of stories for the plebs and veritable crusaders of the common good.
Any intelligent sponsor of an invention who is directly involved with it will try to protect it and preserve the goose, once he's got one. Not so with these Pinocchios - the goose is the target, for these Osama Bin Ladens of the soul!
The priceless Rothwellian gems of 'wisdom' flow in torrents -
"If the capitalists had not pushed them, history would have passed the Wrights by and the aviation boom would have been delayed 2 or 3 more years. Fortunately, things got moving."
Yep, that's how history happens - against a clock that permits Rothwell to decry the mere loss of 2 or 3 years, and with the Spirit of History in the mind of capitalists. Baby stuff. Even though the rest of his text makes it plain enough - for those who read it - that it was the U.S. State and its army that took an interest in the invention for the obvious reasons that have dictated the history of technology to be nothing other than the evolution of military machines, as Guattari postulated. But maybe Rothwell is so bored by his brainless dronings that he doesn't read his own texts either. Since the Wrights were quite eager to accommodate State and army, the hullabaloo that Rothwell makes about their care to protect their commercial secrets is simply inane. Shockingly naive as he is, he rhetorically asks why they didn't file for another patent?, and so on - completely disregarding the organic secretive logic of military and intelligence interests (after all, amongst the first to wake up to the critical military importance of their invention was the Signal Corps) that would dictate the decades of war following the Wrights' inventions. This Rothwell could, in fact, be declared the Ann Landers of `cold fusion' or `free-energy'.
Creative Genius According to Rothwell
The OM incident
Of course, Rothwell was very careful to dissociate whatever he wrote about me - in the aftermath of our '98 confrontation - from the demonstration by David Marett of the negative result in the reproduction of Ohmori-Mizuno experiments. Little did he know that I guided Dave through those experiments, told him what improvements to make to the calorimeter, predicted the outcome and the crossover of the two curves, edited and rewrote passages of his text, provided him with access to the graphing software, introduced him to it, prepared his electrodes, and provided him with some of the chemistry. Of course, I also gave him some of my lecture time. Later Ohmori and Mizuno published a refutation of David's findings - and despite my repeated encouragements, David did not come back to the fight, to stand by his own data and the obvious error which Ohmori and Mizuno committed in not employing proper calorimeters and not running the experiment to its completion. Why did David not put my name on the paper? Because I never asked him to - but neither did he offer.
So while Rothwell frantically poured his bile over our PAGD work, he would soon come up with a volteface that attempted to save the water-arc experiments of Ohmori and Mizuno:
"Mizuno recently published a description of his glow discharge experiments in a $300 per year industry newsletter of some kind. While I was there, his phone was ringing frequently as industrial chemists and engineers called him for details. This shows how much sincere interest there is in industry, and how easy it would be to sell a real, reproducible CF effect. The Kansai Research Institute (KRI) has already replicated the excess heat. Let us hope these other labs will replicate, too. This experiment has the potential to end the cold fusion controversy overnight. It isn't 'easy' to replicate, but with practice and some dedication, an experienced electrochemist at a place like KRI or Mitsubishi can make it work in a few weeks, and it works more often than it fails. It is *far* easier than traditional palladium or nickel based cold fusion. There are, as far as I know, two or three other robust experiments in this category, including the Case cell and, perhaps, Mills." (20 Jul 1999)
I will refrain from commenting on this "new" description that Rothwell now employs of "glow discharge" to designate what is an obvious water-arc in the OM experiment. For Rothwell - as for Ogg and (Douglas) Marett - a discharge is a discharge is a 'clump of light'. It don't matter.
So, then, it is time to ask the same question Rothwell asks of our technology: why is it that the OM 'glow' device, ready as it is to produce heat, has not yet seen the light of day?
For me, in this case, the answer is simple. Because it presents no anomalous evolution of heat, and never did. Scott Little apparently found the same negative result sometime later in 1999. Rothwell's response:
"Of course, the effect still might be an experimental error. We need more replications to be sure. Scott Little's inability to replicate remains puzzling and troubling. I do not know of a reason to think it is an error, but I am still searching, as are Mizuno and Ohmori."
Note, however, how Rothwell writes: it is Scott Little's inability to replicate, not Ohmori and Mizuno's inability to experiment!
Isn't that glorious? - how puzzled and troubled he was when confirmation of the David Marett paper came through. But he is searching for a reason, since he doesn't like the one that has been staring him in the face since 1998: the simple failure to carry out an integral measurement of the energy input and the heat evolved, which I spotted so early on and told David Marett to watch for. Remember what was this Rothwell's war cry? He said:
"I hope that Mizuno is widely replicated and that he and others like him push the secretive researchers [referring to the Correas amongst a few others] onto [sic] oblivion."
Well, it looks like they, Ohmori and Mizuno, may well have instead, unwittingly, pushed themselves into oblivion. (And Rothwell, did he invest, by any chance, in the OM process?)
And another question to Rothwell - how in the world would the work of this Mizuno (for whom Rothwell appears to be the porte-parole) threaten to push aside anything - such as my work, or that of Mills, Shoulders, etc, etc, etc?? Instead, notice the 'inventiveness' of the Japanese researchers - they basically de facto copied Aspden's 1977 patent on how to obtain excess heat from vacuum arcs (without credit, please note!) and figured it sufficed to replace the medium by water with some special salt or other, in a poor calorimeter. Then, to make it sexy, they called their water arc discharge a 'glow discharge'... and published the findings "in a $300 per year industry newsletter of some kind".
This form of `inventiveness' is unfortunately also called competition. And it is also the means through which those who have no ideas and have discovered nothing - like Douglas Marett, for example - go about getting ideas from others and fame for what they have neither discovered, nor invented, nor created. That, too, is competition. In fact, it is the shortest route to socialistic equalization and widespread barbarism. The nerds get to have as good a chance as those whose entire lives have consisted in creating something by resisting precisely these nerds and the established Imperium of their nerd logic.
Oh yes, these people will all be angry with me. That is so very fine. The king is naked, and it is an ugly king, with an ugly rat's ass dangling from a stringline. And if others don't like it now, they should have thought about it when they chose to sneak by on the work of others whom they gratuitously trashed. Yes, such cheap shots may even find financing, since most investors are notoriously stupid anyhow. And the inevitable failure of such nerdish research cannot help but reflect both the rapacity and the immediatism of most anglers and corporations. If these blinders have become the norm for every institution - from the corporations to the military - then what they all get is simply what they have selected for: nothing, vacuity, spectacle, nerd-ness. Which serves them just right. And, of course, still more wars for oil, resources and the like. Plenty of nothing.
This immediatism is another symptom of the decay and disease of 'civilized society' - as if we had all become trained by the Internet boom - the one that has just gone bust - into believing that research into complex questions of basic science could produce, on a platter, a Holy Grail gizmo in just six months. Everything now is supposed to progress with the speed of half-baked, overrated software upgrades. It was anglers and promoters who sold this line to the public. And weak - bored and desperate - scientists, eager to get something for what they already knew was nothing, accepted this status quo, and complied with its fish-market logic. What does Rothwell know about introducing pioneer technologies into society, about the R&D needed to bring about a conversion of such technologies into commercial products, about the pitfalls that need be avoided, beginning with loose marriages to the wrong capital? NADA. He is merely a stockholder in a software company that produced Telephone Call Cost Accounting software, where he was once a white-collar - another technobureaucrat, a Burnham 'manager', who was lucky to strike it rich in a bubble market. A great achievement. He might just as well have bought a lottery ticket. Grand contribution to society and to Life indeed.
And it is this Rothwellian 'civilized' 'business model' of "bend-and-get-buggered-or- piss-off--and-starve" that has become the paragon for commercialization of frontier technologies? Is that the attitude that business should like to promote? I think not, cher Rothwell. What this means is that - in this field of alternative energy - there are only anglers, and expeditions by those whose job it is to fish in troubled waters. The simplest constatation, which Rothwell is so intent on denying. For he, too, is but a bully-boy angler. In whatever yard he plays, there's no space for anyone else's play and only one set of rules. His.
How come no one tells this fish how rank he is? And puts him in his place, cutting him down to size - 'critisizing' him, to use his own exact spelling for a creative neologism?
1. Warts on the move
"I started reading books about relativity theory when I was in 7th grade. (...) I drop hints in the Analog stories and in Dykstra's War about Dykstra's connections to a particular religious denomination called the Calvinist Reformed Church. (...) Around the time I (...) was in high school, the movie Star Wars came out. (...) Two years earlier (...) I wrote a story called Star War. Missed it by that much!"
J. Kooistra, "Behind the Scenes...", Analog Science Fiction and Fact
Why Rothwell's concerted attacks now?
1. The precedent: strident missionaries
I easily confess, in answer to the question above, that I have no idea - save for the fact that in the past year or so we have begun to publish our Aetherometry work in publicly accessible form on the web. However, there is a very troubling precedent, before this most recent attack even happened. In 2001, just before Gene Mallove was to visit us for a planned courtesy demonstration to two of his benefactors (one of whom was present at that free-for-all confrontation back in 1998), Rothwell published a particularly virulent and gratuitous attack. Out of the blue, in an exchange with Jeff Kooistra, Rothwell editorialized in his characteristically cheap fashion:
"My comments were about products that various people claim they have (...) 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." (25 May, 2001).
First of all, the fact is that neither I, nor Alexandra, have ever complained that our work has not been funded. It is a constatation of fact, despite our best efforts to find viable financing. An exposé may not, other than gratuitously, be confused with complaining. To begin with, who would we complain to - God, the US President, the Pope? Who would hear this complaint? Oh, 'the people' that Rothwell makes such constant references to - excuse me! What people? People like Rothwell? Or people like me? Moreover, this situation is not peculiar to the PAGD, since two other patents I hold in another field, with another partner, were never exploited by the University of Toronto despite their obvious critical use for routine, research and clinical applications (in bone marrow transplantation!) and despite our free expenditure of best efforts at commercializing them. And I know personally tens of brilliant inventors or scientists in similar situations.
Secondly, Rothwell has never 'told' me anything, figuratively or otherwise - and any one who imagines Rothwell's recountings to be even mildly reminiscent of actual events should note that! But, like the bully-boy coward that he is, he comforts himself with the fact that I would not be monitoring the insufferable nonsense exchanged on Vortex - he feels quite secure in insinuating his revolting little lies, one by one, as he chooses.
Thirdly, I have never had - in any of my patents - any problem with the USPTO, which has behaved absolutely courteously and correctly in its dealings with me, with my partners and with my agents.
Fourthly, Rothwell never had to "give up" talking to me, since we have never talked to each other - we shouted at each other, or talked past each other, once, when I had the misfortune of meeting him. And once was plenty enough.
Fifthly, I have never had any problem with any courts, and the APS reference can only, in all likelihood, betray who are the masters that actually pull Rothwell's strings. I also know of at least one businessman and scientist who was appalled not by my presentation, but, instead, by Rothwell's vociferous proposals during that 98 conference. At any rate, the above quote is one more outstanding example of Stalinistic revisionism from Rothwell. He has every right to not 'believe' our findings. He has no right to smear my reputation, to falsely impute statements to me (trusting, in his cowardly manner, that I never monitor the Vortex list), to do this over and over as an agent of persecution, and to employ innuendo to suggest, falsely, that I have legal and scientific problems. My only problem is that I, like most pioneer scientists, seem to inevitably attract flies and vermin like Rothwell and Doug Marett who dedicate themselves to attacking my 'person' in order to destroy my work.
And why is that? The only answer I can come up with is that these people actually fear giving a fair chance to aetherometric knowledge and technologies. And sometimes their motive may be as narrow as a wish to reduce science to mere commerce, or to simply be loved by some rising star...
Be that as it may, I do not intend to let Rothwell or his gang crucify 'me'. He and his cohorts are messing with the wrong people, and they should know it. His statements have made it quite plain - his intention is to harm our interests whatever they are, and at all cost. A kind of public declaration of war.
Yes, yes, he has recklessly done that to others - and it is worth noting how William Beaty has in a cowardly manner shrunk from the obviously incumbent responsibility to stop, for instance, the irrational and disproportionate assaults on Mills spearheaded by Rothwell on March 14, 2000, or other similar attacks on Bearden or Shoulders. We have even wondered why some other Vortex participants whom we respect and think of as having the caliber and moral duty to intervene - like Ed Storms - have failed to do so. What is it with Rothwell - does he intimidate people into submission and silence? Or does he buy them out? How come he succeeds? Is it because he picks up the gang's tab?
It has been shameful and degrading for me to read through, in these recent days, Rothwell decrying "Mills' ego" and demanding, at the same time, that Mills - with the scarce 30 or so million dollar investment he got - mount a legal and media campaign against the "weight of courts", tradition, stupidity, avarice and vampirism that rules in our civil societies. The glee with which Rothwell, the critic and skeptic, turns into a porte-parole of projected mobs can only be gauged by weighing his words, in that missive that so fans the fires from hell:
"By all conventional standards Mills is dead wrong. He knows that! Ask any physicist. You can find ten-thousand distinguished expert witnesses anxious testify against Mills. The APS would vote unanimously against him. The major science publication and journal would denounce him for attacking distinguished scientists and interfering in academic freedom, even if he was factually and morally right. No important scientist will take the stand to testify in his favor. Even if an important scientist secretly sympathized with Mills, he would be committing career suicide if he said one word in public or testified in his favor."
A veritable agent provocateur. Masturbatory and missionary, all in one, like any such canaille. He claims to have read Kuhn, but if he did, he understood nothing. For he has little idea of what it takes to induce a paradigm shift. And instead of contributing to an open climate where Mills' work can be fairly evaluated without provocations from cheats like Rothwell, he fans the fires of intolerance and stupidity. Through one side of his mouth he quotes Sun-Tzu, and through the other he presents his Biblico-Occidental philosophy of action as a moralistic form of narcissism and immediate, assured and insured, self- gratification:
"I have no respect for a man who sits on a potential fortune waiting for opportune market conditions, or planning when he should be acting. I despise inaction and indecision. There is no such thing as the opportune moment. It is like love in the springtime: Never wait. Never hesitate. Reach out, go for it, ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you. The best time is NOW; the best one is the one you have NOW. If the machine has value (and the Mills machines circa 1992 did have value!) you can always find a customer." (25 May 2001)
Musashi, far more to my own taste than Sensei Sun, whose work is more statal and military, said this about speed, about rushing to action: "speed is not part of the true Way of Strategy. Speed implies that things seem fast or slow, according somehow to whether or not they are in rhythm. But whatever the Way, the master of strategy never appears to be fast".
Rushing into action - which, in the Occidental world is a continuous rush to judgement, to the Judgement of God (the bread and butter of bully-boys like Rothwell) - itself springs from a life out of kilter with its own rhythms. And after 9/11 we all know the value of such facile judgements by self-obsessed fanatics and other priests of the plague: for, indeed, Mills' machines can have, today even more than in 1992, precisely the value that Mills, better qualified to judge this than anyone else, thinks they do. It is certainly not the ignorant Rothwell - with his noisy trap and his diploma in zeroes - who could ever be the judge of Mills, or of anyone else, for that matter!
On January 14th, 2002, we again find our busy-bee Rothwell reiterating his exhibitionistic clatter:
"There is a large group of people out there who make grandiose impossible or unsubstantiated claims. They have been doing it for years, and I, for one, lost patience with them long ago. I do not think they will ever produce, demonstrate, document or sell anything. They include some people that Gene Mallove still takes seriously, such as Mills, Correa and Shoulders. Knowledge which is not shared does not exist. An academic scientist publishes and encourages replication. A businessman sells and encourages customers and competition."
As if any academician would ever accept that there is a parallel between what they do and what a businessman does - even if, in what concerns spiritual whoredom and corruption, that were true! And as if the scientists or businessmen of a technology company dedicated to promoting its interests were bound by some form of duty to reveal the innards of that technology without proper protection, and to disseminate freely its know-how just in order to encourage competition!
But I cannot claim to undertake either defense or counter-attack for the benefit - or in the name - of other fellow scientists. Yet, I can certainly teach this loud-mouthed brat Rothwell one or two things about the Way of Strategy: And Rothwell is hereby challenged to produce a single believable proof that our claims, published in patents and in a variety of papers, are either impossible or have been demonstrated as being in error by any credible researcher by way of an exact reproduction. The onus is now on him - a single credible reference would suffice! And please, Mr. Rothwell - O rubicund anchorite - do demonstrate our failure to PUBLISH!
Yes, it's true that we do not provide demonstrations to jerks like Rothwell, nor to the general public; that is not our business, our duty or our mission. But neither is it yours, bredouille. And if we have business interests to protect - which we obviously do, O toadster! - you can be sure that we do it in the very same way that any business pursues them and protects them: certainly not by encouraging and helping the competition or giving away know-how! If you don't like that - my response to you remains "tough kaka!"
2. Selling wisdom by the pound
Rothwell's major salvo in his campaign against my work and that of my partners and co-workers began with this 25 May 2001 missive to Vortex, where he went on to replace 'sponsors' - in his argument - with the most cooperative and forgiving customers: 'engineers'. In his own words:
"The general principles of marketing apply to all goods and services. Mistakes such as alienating or boring your customer must be avoided in all cases, but the specifics vary. You sell kitty litter to customers who have cats, and underwear... with a different kind of advertisement, anyway. I think your first target customers for an o-u machine would be kind of [sic] engineers who bought the early home computers. They are an easy sell! They are the most cooperative and forgiving customers imaginable."
Unflattering as his remark might be to all engineers ("easy sell"), the fact remains that our rubicund bully-boy has figured it all out - finding 'customers' for 'o-u' devices is as easy as selling kitty litter. However, there is a small snag in his elocubrations: the problem of alternative energy technologies is not one of finding customers, moron! Customers will always be found for a product that reaches commercialization, bozo! The problem is finding investment capital that has the balls to commit to the actual R&D which is required for commercialization, ie for development of a reliable product. Who could possibly care about engineers? They have no more access to capital than do fishwives. What the Vortex 'engineers' really want is to be told how to do it on their own with a few spare parts lying around their basements; this would be laudable if they actually did some work, and if their repetitions could ever qualify as reproductions (watch Fink, or better still - watch Doug Marett!). Granted, I have not perused all the Vortex communications. But the sampling I have experienced quite suffices to make a generalization to those I name the Warts in Vortex: I have not yet seen a reproduction of any experimental arrangement which is correctly performed by these Warts. And it looks more and more like Vortex reduces to a list of misfits with heavy hands, whose idol must surely be Sinatra (he, too, had an uncle...).
Total contradiction, however, is not a condition that frightens our bully-boy, since he actually admits that the question of 'customers' - be they engineers or anybody else - is not what is at issue. In the very next paragraph of the very same post, in reply to someone who said
"...most inventors don't come in with anything like a 'product' ready to be marketed. Some may come in with a fairly detailed idea about what they want to build, but have lacked the money to build it. Others may have been able to scrape together enough cash to do some experiments which lead them believe they could build their exotic device, but lack the money or time . . . "
"They face the same predicament as the CF scientists. Alas, I have no answer for them. If I had one, I would have sold gadgets made by Mizuno or Storms years ago. Does anyone out there want a $10,000 experiment that produces 0.3 watts excess heat? Works nearly every time? Contact Ed or me, and we'll set you up with on [sic]."
So which is it, Mr. Bully Boy? You have no answer for them, but you have no compunction about spouting grandiose bunk telling them that "they should be acting", that you despise "inaction and indecision", and that they should knock, and it (which IT?) shall be opened.
What a pitiful performance, Mr. Rothwell, when it is examined - as I am doing now - under the microscope! I almost hesitate to go on, as I certainly do not desire to be overcome by pity for your sorry condition. But then - I am also reminded of all the malicious harm you have done to so many researchers, including myself.
Being the bully is a full-time occupation. Its consumptive hatred needs to be vented - and this is accomplished all the better when it localizes on a specific obsessive object. In Rothwell's case, the inventor - and, preferably, the Correas. The immediatism of the Rothwellian reaction, however, is extreme and obviously unreasonable: He writes:
"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 ..."
But we do not have a 'gizmo-product', you Rothwellian jerkette! We have plenty of bench prototypic demonstrations for various technologies, not products. Solid proof of principle. If they were products, then there would be no need for substantial R&D funding. Only stupidly ignorant people permit themselves to imagine that any technology which will yield 'o-u machines' will - of necessity - be so simple that every numbnut will be able to put one together in his garage as a final product. Or, perhaps, even assembly lines of them... The fact of the matter is that, in the 'real world', alternative energy technologies must go through the usual development process: proof of concept in a bench apparatus, followed by proof of concept for a specific application or applications in a prototype, followed by extensive materials testing under stress, until finally, product manufacture is undertaken. Why on earth should serious, alternative energy research be expected to come about in the form of basement-assembled kits? Why would anyone assume that no substantial R&D will be necessary to produce a reliable, trusted energy conversion infrastructure?
Well, it seems that Rothwell engages in whipping up these frenetic expectations so that he may then channel the resulting frustration - of the idiots who believe his ambulatory self-publicity - into a social force powered by resentment, hatred and ignorance, and direct it against those scientists whom he chooses to make his targets.
More Rothwell on the same occasion:
"Nothing else matters. We are talking energy here. When the price is right, you can find a market for energy in any amount, at any power level, from milliwatts to megawatts. If you can make it, somebody out there wants to buy it. If Ed and I could figure out how to make his 0.3 watts for whole lot [sic] less than $10,000, we could probably sell that too. $1,000 or $2,000 would do it."
So what's been keeping you and Storms and Ohmori and Mizuno? A year has passed and still no kits, no gullible engineers, no 0.3 watts output? Lots of hot air, it would seem - and nothing more. As much hot air as there is in hot nuclear fusion, eh?
And this one, on antigravity, still on the same occasion-
"With an anti-gravity machine, you put it on a scale and crank it up. If it works, you are in business."
Ah the blessed wet dreams of simpletons. Do you hear, folks? And the Warts, too, should pay close attention. It's that simple - take it from Rothwell himself. For two years we have demonstrated substantial losses of weight (20% to >90%) on a target mounted on a balance and subject to our apparatus. Yet, the situation we've encountered with respect to financing is no different than that encountered with respect to any other technology we have strived to find capital for. Proof of principle is not enough. Only a production line already cranking out products, desired by everyone, guaranteed to triple investors' capital in 6 months, is deemed worthy of support. These immediatisms of Rothwell are both lunacies and disingenuous lies of an exhibitionist who counts only on the fear, indifference and ignorance of his audience. Nothing more.
To buttress his fortress of impulsive ticks, there follows still another one:
"> Does it have to be an already viable gadget?
> What if the inventor hasn't had enough money to make a viable gadget?
He is out of luck."
At this point one begins wondering who set this Rothwell up to this task. For here's the bottom line of what he is saying repeatedly, in loud and clear words: that technology does not develop out of science; that science is irrelevant and so is theory. The very structure of scientific thought, once severed from science and its pursuit, technology, becomes almost a mere matter of volitionism. And the inventor or scientist is screwed - unless he scrapes and schemes to assemble, on his own, the money to make a viable gadget, a product at last. Without that money to make that final product, he is out of luck; he will never get the capital he needs to...make that final product! Isn't it sublime how the dog eats its tail? It's a classical Batesian double-bind. But it's also much more than that. It's as if capital, venture capitalists and corporations, had decided that no one will ever challenge the existing monolithic energy monopolies. If the invention is born within their institutional context, that's alright - they already own it, ipso facto. And they may develop it at their leisure as their other assets diminish. But if it springs from what the Warts call "an inventor", then he better have the final product - not to mention an entire infrastructure - already in hand. This way, if it works, the inventor can just be 'relieved' of it.
As if one's life's work, the life's work of an inventor, were a mere log of shit he 'needs' to be relieved of. Yes, that's what the bully-boy would have his dull readers believe: that being an inventor is the analogue of being constipated. Or of being pregnant, perhaps - with a log. Such is the extraordinary bankruptcy of his 'thought'.
His immediatism is also illustrated by this statement:
"The overhead for an electric motor is much lower than a heat engine, so it should be easier to make an electrical o/u device self sustain. A heat engine must be ~500% o/u; an electric engine can self sustain with ~110%."
Theoretically, a ~333% COP should suffice for a heat engine. But then, this very definition of COP would not apply to our HYBORAC/Stirling, where nothing save atmospheric radiation (which we can compute - but need not spend any energy whatsoever to input), solar and terrestrial, is driving that heat. That's right, O Rothwell. And so, here is a challenge for your terminally challenged mind: take any electric device that has been claimed to generate power in excess of input. How would you propose to make it self-sustainable at 110%? I would like to see that - with batteries, coils, resistances, capacitances, flywheels, you name it. How would you do it, Mr. Bully-Boy who cannot read, add or subtract? Mr. Illiteratus!
I'm afraid that this exposition of the simplistic facileness of Rothwell's 'reasoning' is now getting close to the conscious or unconscious agenda that people like Rothwell so doggedly appear to pursue. It is not, as it pretends to be, a crusade for the 'little men and women' of this planet; no. It manipulates the latter (those who regard themselves as fans of this Rothwell and his 'reasonings') into some psychotic frenzy where they cease to experience even a trace of natural shame for talking so freely about that which they do not read carefully (if at all), do not understand, and even admit to having zero knowledge of.
If I, in my turn, may give advice, my advice to any young inventor, or anyone who has a good idea or has even developed a bench apparatus, is: stay away from forums like Vortex - and dog-and-pony-show operators like Rothwell. Avoid the Maretts and the Kooistras and the peer-poseurs. They are a misfortune, a blight that has befallen alternative science. The only thing to be found in forums like Vortex are vacuous vampires who have already monopolized the communication lines, and are eager to jump at a chance to wrap you up in their intrigues and endless purposeful disinformation, if not to steal outright what you have discovered. And at best you'll find only what hot-air-propelled arses do best: farts.
3. The reintroduction of Douglas Marett
I know this is well beneath me, but nevertheless, I will mention it - because the moral of this long story of Rothwell's vendetta and the Vortex mob has an important consequence. Happily, I have never met Colin Quinney, a self-appointed 'journalist' that has no journalistic piece I know of to his credit. Never saw the bitch, fatter or thinner. Never even heard about him, until that first disinformative intervention he suddenly sent about me to (where else?) Vortex in 1996. Yet, as a mouthpiece of Marett and whatever else Beaty has chosen to allow, this crapule clearly hates 'my' guts. Recently, someone drew my attention to a particularly low-life and abject post this Quinney had concocted - comparable only to the private letter that Douglas Marett sent me years back and which, out of shame for himself and his twin brother, I have, to this day, avoided making public (probably not for much longer). On 17th March 2000, this Quinney wrote:
"Just to set the record straight, it was at this time that Paulo Correa cleverly initiated a series of personal attacks and a threat of a lawsuit. I point this out so that folks will understand why Doug recanted, and also perhaps why he did not even bother to challenge Mike Carrell's interpretation of his words. Sometimes I think the best path to take is knowing when to fold 'em. A good reporter however, tries to get both sides of a story directly from the main participants, but I doubt that Mike had ever spoken with or even tried to contact Doug as any professional science reporter would have done. As anyone who has ever been written up in a news story knows, there's almost always more to the story than meets the ink."
Ah, there's nothing like a man who has missed every side of the story to go about 'setting it straight'. In fact, Doug recanted because he is a buffoon and his allegations were patently and obviously false, O moron and liar! Doug and his onetime mentor, Jammerling Ogg, have been publicly challenged on my websites for six years (see, for example, The Correa-Reich Affair), and a more poignant challenge was thrown their way over a year ago; but to this day, like the cowards and falsifiers they are, they failed to address even a single question in that challenge! That's the other side of the story - the one which the torpid Quinney never even bothered to investigate.
These sordid campaigns that have been variously mounted on the OML, OBRL and Vortex against me, my partners and coworkers, by a discrete group of anglers - with Marett, Quinney, Ogg, Rothwell, DeMeo, and now Kooistra, at the head - is in essence and nature no different from what Tesla and Reich - both much better men and scientists than most of us could ever ambition to be - experienced, in their lives, from a variety of emotionally disturbed persecutors. Mocenigo Inc, I should say.
The fact is that these anglers were quite surprised when the Aetherometry website appeared at their Windows. Indeed, after being filled with the Marett drivel in 1996, Quinney never imagined that six years later we would not only have reproduced Reich's OR motor setup but, more importantly, improved upon it in fundamentally new ways. Nor could Douglas Marett foresee such developments. The news only inflamed them - once again - to even greater heights of stupidity and disingenuity. This, in a nutshell, is the other side of the story - which happens to be the side of bare facts. And since this Quinney has the ludicrous pretension to teach about 'impartial' reporting, let it be said that at no time did he attempt to contact me to learn 'the other side' of the story before he set about writing his contemptible lies about me - and about Douglas Marett's most 'honorable' motivations - on the same Vortex forum. Ah, for the good old far west when a Doc Holliday could freely swat a Quinney!
It is true that at this hour Quinney does not matter. That he is irrelevant and can rest consumed by his irrational and ill-informed hatred. He has Douglas to blame for that. My sole point with this sad exposé of what Beaty has allowed Vortex to become, is that this rampant inflation of disinformation is precisely the result of the persistent infusions of gratuitous hate and malice that bully-boys like Rothwell and their handmaids - like Quinney - dispense on the list. And in a very real sense, there is a divine form of justice in all this, as twisted Reichians with their rampant mysticisms become the Correa-victimized brothers of Rothwell, who so much hates both Reich and Tesla. This is just as things should be. Rothwell and Kooistra, DeMeo and Ogg, Reiter and Quinney, the two Marett twins, all dancing their infernal jig on the edge of anomie! True Christian Soldiers in spirit.
2. The final attack
"Well, here we are in a special place
what are you going to do here?
now we stand in a special place
what will you do here?
what show of soul are we gonna get from you?
It could be Deliverance or History
under this sky so blue
but if i know you you'll
bang the drums like monkeys do.
Here we are in a fabulous place
what are you gonna dream here?
we're standin' in this fabulous place
what are you gonna play here?
I know you love the high life
you love to leap around
you love to beat your chest
and make your sound
but not here man!"
M. Scott, "Don't bang the drum"
1. A minion lurking in the hay
Ah, the blue, blue sky - but these monkeys would much rather be 'prospering' on the Moon! And if they succeed in making this Earth sufficiently unlivable, the Moon - with its black sky - will end up looking rather good in comparison!
Speaking of tin soldiers beating their drum - enter Jeffery Kooistra, the man who went from science-fiction to the Marinov motor in order 'to save Humanity' (the capital is his courtesy).
I met this repugnacious evangelical critter - now Mr. Rothwell's minion and self- promoted "aether theorist" - right after that '98 free-for-all confrontation with Rothwell. He congratulated me and told me he wished to be doing "real exciting work like your plasma work". He even quipped something to the effect that it had always been his dream to do so, but having kids became the dictate in his life that determined his choices of survival. Maybe he should have cloned himself.
I never had a reason to dislike him or like him, until I understood from an informed third party that this Kooistra ( and not his Dorothy!) was angling to sabotage the life's work of our dear friend Gene Mallove. I will not go there, since it is Gene's prerogative to do so if he so pleases. I only heard about it by the time Kooistra had been fired - with good reason - from Infinite Energy. But I will add nevertheless that he was not alone in this extraordinarily base treachery.
I can summarize, in a single phrase, his judicial, prosecutorial and penal sentence on my work. Indeed, it was an echo of the famous Znidarsic, who could not quite spell it (nor anything else, for that matter). Z stated that all my work and that of my partner was "goppley goop". This is, I presume, a silicone-based 'goppley' invented by Z ("comme Zorglub"), in his spare time and garage, to plug his own boredom - in other words, a 'goop' (and everyone knows what goop is nowadays). But Z could not market it correctly, so the minion of the bully-boy decided to try a different publicity stunt where he actually corrected Z, and invented the word "gobbledy-gook". Even his spelling dictionary could have told him he had not spelled that one 'write' (sic!), since there is no dash.
Kooistra, with his Dorothy, makes his entrance in a very telling way - wanting a truce with Rothwell. Those who create the scenario usually bring forth their team in toto. Yes, I love aphorisms. My teacher was fond of them more than one hundred years ago, when he taught me that heroes of culture must never seek to get to the end of their heroism. It is not euphoria but aphoria one encounters. But without further ado - we're back to Kooistra, a veritable Petri dish for the most virulent of cultures, hate: to resolve the thermal anomaly in the Reich-Einstein experiment, he suggests to Rothwell, we should study the motion of soap bubbles:
"I usually bitch about something when I write to you, but not this time [this is in response to Rothwell's assertion that the thermal anomaly "probably" has "a prosaic explanation"]. All excellent points in this paragraph and the one following. By the way, my kids have been playing with this soap bubble blowing stuff that forms relatively 'tough' bubbles. The object is to catch them in the air on a stick and stack them. Their tendency to persist makes them excellent indicators of air current motion."
The least he could do is leave Dorothy and the girls out of it.
Yes, me too, Kooistra, sometimes I believe I am becoming a mafioso. Did I ever tell you about my uncle? He had a great predilection for sticking pins in all sorts of bubbles, big fat round ones...
So, after discarding the small positive temperature differences in the Reich-Einstein experiment as the result of convection currents, Kooistra moved on to argue that the HYBORAC/Stirling experiments, in turn, were the result of "mundane RF heating" of the HYBORAC enclosure. This is a cow from which he would subsequently attempt to milk more anti-Correa venom, but meanwhile he proceeded thusly:
"Since it is a simple exercise in high school physics to 'calibrate' the Sterling [sic] motor (i.e. find rpms/watt) at least to a correct ballpark figure, I'm surprised that neither the Correas nor Ken or Gene has done this yet." (June 4, 2002, Vortex)
He simply assumed that "we had not done this yet" because he failed to realize that the figures (20 to 500mW) we reported for HYBORAC-driven Stirlings corresponded to the range of the observed and reported variations in speed! He just wanted a fixed value!! Yet, forget about calculating the output power or work of a Stirling, not Sterling, engine from first principles (from moments of inertia, angular acceleration, angular velocity, linear velocities, masses, etc.) - something Mr. Kooistra has never done. What about calculating the power needed for RF radiation to produce either the small delta T's of the Reich-Einstein experiment, or the massive delta T's of the HYBORAC device that powered those Stirling engines? That too, he has never done - which did not prevent him, however, from moving his vacuously malicious attack to a larger forum still, by penning a shameful article in the Analog Science Fiction and Fact magazine (December 2002), whose introductory paragraph right away exhibits one of his primary motivations - a personal grudge against Dr. Mallove - a grudge of which Kooistra's campaign against us and our work is an ugly extension. Such grudges propel individuals to irrational behaviour and inordinate statements - frequently starting from the assumption that what one knows about something is all there is to know about it, and proceeding from there to falsify one's target. Fictionalizers, of course, care little about making such inordinate statements - it's their lifeline, after all.
But Kooistra is no mere fictionalizer. He bends facts (as one may bend fictions), but for his own sordid motives - and the motives of those, whoever they may be, who have been supporting him in these missions. He is the general minion, the parish priest. Quick at the draw, he shoots down everything that moves, without the slightest need to understand what it is he's firing at; a kinda Destiny Billy the Kid.
He returns in that Analog article to the mundane RF explanation as something that satisfies the findings of the Reich-Einstein experiment. After gloating about how he is unable to read our communications (for all I know, he has not actually tried), he even goes so far as to claim that whatever background man-made 'RF radiation' exists today is no different from what existed in 1941, when Reich and Einstein performed their experiments (Einstein reported he made observations for a full week, as we also did - see our two papers on the subject (IE, Vol. 7, #37, p.18; Akronos monograph AS2- 05)). Yes, check out this man's prose! 1941: when there were no televisions, no PC's, no microwave towers, no microwave ovens, few high-power broadcasts, when 60 Hz lines did not form a continental grid, no cellular phones, no significant radar beams, no satellites (let alone satellite communications) - just a few radio stations, a few experimental short-range radars, a few oscilloscopes, and so on. This is Kooistra, the man who fictionalizes even the past in a supposedly-factual 'debunking' column.
But does he have to engage in anything as mundane as actually doing his numbers before hurling out at us his grave accusations of shoddiness? The letter my partner and I have written to the editor of ASFF clearly demonstrates he doesn't and he didn't. His readers, evidently, were not worthy of the time and trouble it would take. His assumption is that his readers trust him implicitly - if Kooistra says that the phenomenon is due to man-made RF heating, and that RF heating already existed in 1941 at the same power densities as it exist today - then that's as good as God's fiat!
If, as one can easily show, ambient RF heating cannot account (by 2 orders of magnitude!!) for the small delta T's of the Reich-Einstein experiment, then how do Kooistra and his newfound ally Rothwell propose to have it account for those massive delta T's that moved the Stirling engine? Yet that is precisely what he and Rothwell did on Vortex in the fallacies and lunacies they publicly ventured concerning our HYBORAC/Stirling experiment reports (Akronos monographs AS2-25 & AS2-26):
"If Paulo can put a radio next to his ORAC and tune in a station, then there is a local RF field present. Faraday cages null out RF on the inside of the box. They do this by moving electrons around--we call those 'currents.' Except in perfect conductors, currents produce heat. Now, obviously, one radio station won't contribute squat unless you happen to be right by it. But presumably Paulo could tune in more than one radio station there in Toronto? And if he dragged a TV into the yard, he could also tune in a TV station, right? And if he has a cell phone out there, he could also receive a call, right? And there is a tremendous amount of industrial power be [sic] shuttled around near Toronto too, right? All those houses, the factories, the office buildings, etc. That's a whopping load of 60 Hz AC current moving around in the vicinity of the ORAC. (all of this EM is all way out [sic] of phase with itself so the individual electrons intercepting the 'net' signal mostly just wobble around.) At any rate, since the Earth far outshines the sun at RF frequencies (by which I mean everything from 1 Hz to microwave freqs), it is simply a matter of fact that the ORACs are getting some of their heat from RF--if they weren't, they wouldn't be Faraday cages. So the critical question then becomes, how much of this heat accounts for the measured delta-T?"
That is the question that, after all his hateful and emotionally-loaded hyperbole with himself, Kooistra still has not managed to answer to this day! To himself or his reading public! He had to ask us for the answer, because he has both a reading and a calculus handicap. But as he could not ask us, not per se! and, certainly not as a gentleman!, he thought it better, in the tradition of Rothwell, to attempt to bully us - with his idiotic speculations - into responding. The only "whopping" there is to be found is in the jumble of his misinformed and lazy neurons which could not put 2 and 2 together.
Paradoxically, Kooistra even states (Analog, December, 2002) - "granted, we ordinarily don't think about this [mundane RF] source of 'radiation' as contributing much heat". Yet, he adds, "but note that a toy crystal set (...) still outputs enough 'oomph' to vibrate the diaphragm in an earphone". Voilá the rigor of the Kooistra demonstration - and the senile logic: "oomph".
His very 'mundane explanation' demonstrates nothing - save the ascientific and capricious nature of his own noxious motivation.
And while in his Analog column he now vaunts himself as being unable to read our material, months before, on June 8, he could state, instead, on Vortex:
"[...] a science bigot like Park would not read Paulo's material at all. I did. So did Jed. It is a simple matter of objective analysis to note that Paulo's experimental methods are inadequate."
One day he has read all the material, so he can pass judgement on our work, but the next day he hasn't read anything because he was unable to cope with the new functions and terminology. Kooistra certainly does not croak from his explicit contradictions - but neither has he any credibility whatsoever. As for the 'So did Jed' comment - this, too, has nothing to do with fact. For had he been paying attention, he would have noticed that Jed explicitly said he had not read it; that he - tried, but couldn't make heads or tails of it. So the 'So did Jed' has strictly to do with Kooistra attempting to establish a little safety in bully-boy-lynch-mob numbers for his idiotic assessments.
And it is this same Kooistra that demanded, wig and all, on Vortex -
"If rigor is to be asserted, then rigor must be present."
Well then, he should live and die by his own standard, no? Rigor mortis. Mr. Kooistra, who claims that we, and Reich and Einstein, have been chasing - and I quote - "this mundane EM noise heating effect" that "was there in 1941 when Reich showed this experiment to Einstein", should now present to the readers of Analog a rigorous demonstration to prove that his brilliant contentions can actually hold water. Please, Mr. Kooistra, demonstrate - experimentally and mathematically and rigorously - how the anomalous delta T's observed in specific Faraday cages can result from modern ambient RF levels (that are much greater than those in 1941, by the way)! Be challenged, and prove that you're not just the unfortunate slob we suspect you are - and which your commentaries certainly indicate you are - by showing that this mundane 'explanation' is something other than pseudoskeptical and condescending bugaboo drivel.
And then you might continue by answering what it is that people like you, or Rothwell, or Marett, find so threatening about my work and that of my co-workers? Could it be that what so much threatens all of you - emotionally - is the possibility that someone might actually figure out a mathematically consistent theory of the Aether? One that proves and explains how every particle of Matter is composed with specific geometries dictated by the wave and energy functions involved? One that demonstrates exactly how each particle of Matter is but a specific configuration of aether energy? One that proves that Aether energy, in turn, is neither inertial nor monopolar, but massfree and, under certain conditions, ambipolar? One that demonstrates how Phase Space has a discrete but finite and ascertainable number of dimensions? One that does not reduce Time to flat Spacetime, and finds the mathematical and physical conditions to enunciate Time as a manifold distinct from Space? One that explains how the Aether is composed, how it flows, and of what it is made? One in which no waves, however solitary, exist outside of energy displacement?
Let Kooistra, the fictionalizer and minion, answer for himself: "Of what is the aether made? I don't know and I really don't care; that question can be left to the future." (Analog, October 2002)
And why are the minds of the likes of Kooistra deranged by so many fictions? Something oedipal, deeply oedipal is at work here - they simply have to find the Theory of Everything that serves for Nothing: "In my opinion, for those pursuing the Theory of Everything, the wave of the future is solitary" (Ibidem).
Mass-marketing now means solitary - because it is all composed of solitons; Kooistra now discovers vortices, knotted rings, hydrodynamics, soon he may understand theories of fusion.
But he is light-years away from understanding how Aetherometry precisely describes the motion of massfree energy as vortico-trochoidal, or the filamentary finite flux structure of the electron as a torus; or how it describes the geometries of motion that result from the massfree structure of gravitons and their association with mass, or the coupling of kinetic energy to massbound charges accelerated by an impinging field. You see, if one actually looks over the articles Kooistra has written for the past few years in Analog, they are a sort of Reader's Digest of slapstick propositions devoid of formal or conceptual consistency. He describes himself (Analog, March 2000), as having "become an aether believer" because "inevitably aether theories began to make so much more sense than the current views". Yes, people like this are only capable of becoming believers. But it's like changing bubble gum brands: in the space of six months he could no longer care less about this. And now he pines for a Theory of Everything based on the solitary wave.
He is still to learn what many physicists are still to learn - that no waves propagate without energy displacement! That particles are not unidimensionalities of mass, but physical momenta associated with energy. That there are no particles per se, only units of energy, whether mass-energy, electromagnetic energy or massfree energy.
His belief in having become an aether theorist is as hollow as Lilly's claim that he could speak "dolphineeze". I will not bother the reader with the garbage Kooistra has written about pair creation and pair destruction, or about his "convective derivatives", or his contention (another red herring) that "perfect fluid aether models are nonlinear, and thus, it's hard to do the math in them" (Ibidem). In reading this Kooistra trash, I am led to avow, in my turn, that Robert Park sounds almost reasonable. Curious that it was in a column dedicated to exposing Park for his debunking of the Newman motor and CF, that Kooistra chose to beat his chest: "Now I doubt whether the two Roberts remember me at all. Forward was already a NAME, and Zubrin was on his way to becoming a NAME, and I'm still a little Name." (Analog, October 2000)
For these little men, all revolves around the NAME they make for themselves - not their reputation or their integrity, or the care and accuracy of what they say and do. No, that's not for them! For them, science is about the NAME because the NAME is known when established peers recognize it and it appears on laundry detergent boxes and coffee-table books such as those by Stephen Hawking. That's why, in returning to Analog, Kooistra promoted all his co-writers from names to Names that he could drop in exchange for favours - chimpanzee-style, "scratch my back and I'll scratch yours": "Analog authors ceased to be just names [sic], and in many instances became friends. (For those of you who wonder about such things, yes, it is really cool to be able to go sailing with [so-and-so], or to be able to call up the President of SFWA [so-and-so] and ask for a blurb for your novel" (Analog, December 2000). And how did Kooistra work on nurturing his Name, however little? By name-dropping, of course: "Since I work for Infinite Energy Magazine, the most widely read 'cold fusion' magazine in the world, it would be fair for Analog readers to consider my views biased on that particular subject" (Analog, October 2000).
About Park's treatment of Newman, he wrote: "His treatment of Newman was shallow and, well, lazy. His attempt at a scientific experiment proved nothing". As for Kooistra himself, he hasn't even attempted a simple duplication of the Reich-Einstein experiment! Shallow and lazy as he is, he already knows the effect is caused by 'RF heating'. Besides, he has far better things to do - since he is above all devoted, ever since childhood, "to the idea of humanity having a prosperous future on the Moon" (Analog, December 2000). I almost typed preposterous - only to realize how much truer that is. Preposterous, is precisely what these debile fictions peddled by Kooistra are; the tired old fictions of an epoch that predates even Americans landing on the Moon! But perhaps Analog readers are used to this kind of brainless infantilism. Yes, if only the stupidly absurd is to be believed in, then truly science (and good science fiction) is done for. The Sarfattis, the Lillys, the Blasbands, the DeMeos and Bakers, the Essalens, the Rothwells, they shall triumph!
For students of Aetherometry, however, there is a further irony in all this - because Aetherometry effectively contends that there are no radio waves, no microwaves, no moving photons, no structural bundles of light or light corpuscles hurled at a distance: in sum, that electromagnetic waves do not propagate, that light, in fact, does not move! That's right - Aetherometry adheres entirely to Einstein's heuristic view of the photon. Photons are born and die, so to speak, on the spot. Photons go nowhere. What transmits their stimulus from locale to locale is not an electromagnetic wave ("devoid of energy"), nor the mystical propagation of an electromagnetic signal across either a stationary or a dragged Aether. What transmits the stimulus is ambipolar electric radiation - or massfree longitudinal radiation - and the transmission requires a massfree energy flux that is part of a wave continuum. In what concerns light itself, electromagnetic waves and their superimposition only define the energy of the photon released locally from massbound charge - as a mere transformation of the released kinetic energy it previously absorbed from the underlying ambipolar field. Photons are singularities, and all light, ionizing or blackbody, is made up of these stationary or 'inertial' photons. What moves are not electromagnetic waves, but massfree waves of ambipolar energy. What moves is electric aether energy. So, there are no 'RF waves', not the way that Kooistra and most physicists have thought there were, ever since Maxwell made that very same mistake. 'RF waves' is simply a euphemism for the ambipolar massfree radiation which man-made machines emit. It's just another way of cataloguing that which modern physics poorly understands. And it is therefore little wonder that one can induce heating with such radiation - given that all ambipolar radiation accelerates massbound charge, and this massbound charge, upon deceleration or stoppage, and apart from elastic collisions, will shed this energy in part, or in toto, to produce - precisely! - local photons. What is radiant heat, sensible heat, in turn, other than the energy of these photons as it is absorbed by materials, registered as increased temperature and felt by sensory innervation? So, in fact, Kooistra misses everything - including the fact that Faraday cages trap sensible heat precisely because they serve as targets for ambipolar radiation, man-made ('RF waves') or not, and precisely because the interaction of that ambipolar radiation with such a cage generates both an increase in the sensible heat of the molecules trapped in its volume (which is what creates the thermal anomaly that Reich discovered and that is subjacent to both the Reich-Einstein experiment and our HYBORAC/Stirling experiment), and an increase in their latent heat. Likewise, the presence of eddy-currents on the surface of those cages is precisely a manifestation of the acceleration of massbound charges by the incident ambipolar radiation field, ie the result of the field conferring upon them a defined kinetic energy. If Mr. Kooistra had been paying attention, he would have saved himself mountains of sheer incomprehension and embarrassment.
And since Kooistra had the courage of stating, to Gene, on Vortex (6 Jun 2002):
"Jed [Rothwell] 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"
I now challenge him to:
(1) Prove - rigorously - that gobbledy-o-gook charge as it applies to my work or that of my co-workers.
(2) Produce the names (or Names, or NAMES??) of those illustrious scientists whose "agreement" he invokes. Don't they have the decency - or the courage - of speaking for themselves?
The world of Vortex is chock-full of mundane explanations - from Beaty's reduction of orgone radiation to IR photons, to Marett's reduction of the electroscopic anomaly discovered by Reich to a mere matter of ions ("As Jeff [Kooistra] points out, there is a far more mundane explanation", wrote Marett), to Kooistra's various reductions of the thermal anomaly of ORACs - one day to convection and the next to RF. It's a merry- go-round of platitudinous vanities in their smoldering bonfire.
As Gene commented on Vortex:
"Oh, for the good old days when Kooistra couldn't stand the ground Jed Rothwell walked on!"
And when Marett had not yet abjured his Reichian faith, and DeMeo (DeMayo, as Kooistra calls him) and Beaty did not imagine that the thermal anomaly of ORACs was due to IR photons, and Rothwell believed that CF was going to save Humanity, and the show of soul was expected to make them all billionaires under skies, oh so blue!
But monkeys of this kind only know one thing - bang the drum.
2. The recent and vicious attacks of Rothwell: how, finally, Rothwell resorts to smear and libel
On April 30, 2002, Rothwell wrote:
"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"
So, he admits he does not know much about electricity, but suspects that all claims of o/u performance for electrical devices originate in mistakes. Why then, aware as he is of his own limitations, does Rothwell not admit the same possibility of 'mistakes' with respect to my work and the work of my partner, Alexandra? No, the possibility of "mistakes" does not even arise in what concerns "Correa", no matter whether "Correa's inventions" are electric or not:
"30,000 to 50,000 people die every week for lack of energy. Their right to survive far outweighs the Correa's intellectual property rights. This situation would be a moral outrage if the Correas claims were true, but I do not think they are, so it is only a farce. [...] There are three possibilities:
1. They are liars and they have faked their results.
2. They are insane.
3. They are morally depraved monsters who withhold vitally important technology." (J. Rothwell, 1 May 2002)
In point-blank fashion, by way of a complete generalization, having made not even the slightest attempt to address a single of the specific scientific arguments or claims contained in our work, Rothwell declares our claims to be false, ourselves to be either "liars" or "insane", and our right to our work 'a farce'. Speechless - that's how we feel. Alexandra and I have made so many different claims in a variety of technologies and fields. And here this ignoramus - who possesses not even the slightest formal or effective scientific formation - has the courage to casually use a public forum to spew out this vitriolic bile, devoid of any scientific merit - or any other merit, for that matter (not even his ad hominems are creative) - to summarily smear us and our entire work. It is simply astonishing!
We will return to that May 1 post a bit later. Meanwhile, still on April 30, very little man that he is, Rothwell next demands (yes, since he thinks my life's work and Alexandra's are a farce, he feels vindicated in demanding):
"I demand independent replications and verifications foe [sic] all claims, not just the Correa's [sic]"
Isn't it instructive that Rothwell imagines it to be quite legitimate to - on the one hand - criticize the skeptics of conventional physics who, having read none of the pertinent literature, misinform the public about work done in `cold fusion' (work that, in only too many instances, has failed to be reproduced and verified!), while, on the other, he proceeds in exactly the same bigoted and disinformative manner with respect to the entirety of our extensive work in plasma physics and Aetherometry? The fact of the matter is that he and the professional skeptics are, in every respect, exactly alike. Both parasitize upon well entrenched interests; both are lazy and complacent when it comes to foraying outside their narrow fields of interest; both are devoid of natural curiosity; both are motivated by neurotic, resentful hidden agendas; and both are content with having someone else tell them how to think.
Well, Mr. Rothwell, demand all you want - but do it by putting up your own money (as we have always done with respect to our research) and signing on the dotted line to affirm your honest (if you could ascend to such a quality) intent. And secure your own independent replication and verification of our work. Is it not a moral outrage that you - having wealth at your disposal - do not selflessly put it to the service of the 'humanity' you incessantly bleat about? Would this not be the noble course of action - infinitely more so, I should think, than your current occupation of crouching over your computer keyboard, dispatching endless poison-pen letter 'assessments' regarding our work - in an obsessive attempt to foul waters you have never navigated, and in the abject hope of preventing others from journeying there?
Even others, who somehow appear convinced I have stolen something from somebody (though in the sleazy manner characteristic of the Warts, they never exactly specify what and from whom), are careful not to cross the line that Rothwell crosses so cavalierly in his 2002 campaign:
"BTW, I don't believe that Correa is a fraud, because frauds are smooth, convincing, and tell what you want to hear. That's not Correa :-) He may well be an arrogant thief, but that says nothing about the workability of his technology." (Fred Epps, March 17, 2000).
To continue with our examination of the 2002 campaign from the Vortex-block bully- boy, here is another brilliant insight (penned on January 24, 2002):
"The inventors always hold back, and in the end they take their secrets to the grave. They give some hackneyed reason to hold back: they are bitter because they were cheated by a business associate; they can't get a patent; they're afraid of nefarious Men in Black; they don't want to hand over such enormous power to humanity; they think humankind is not ready for their genius (as Correa said). The tragic last scene in these tales was described by Arthur Clarke: A dark stormy night, the castle on the hill burns and explodes. As the inventor is crushed by falling machinery, the voice-over intones: 'there are some things Man is Not Meant to Know.'"
What should one say to such an obnoxious, insidious way of writing? The fact is that if men choose to make themselves stupid, lazy, greedy and vengeful - as Rothwell seems to think is the smart way to proceed in life - then they, like him, will most certainly end their lives not knowing much of anything. And it is also, without question, a fact, that far too many fine minds and inventors - in a multitude of disciplines - have had their long years of work smeared, ignored, suppressed or stolen precisely by such stupid, lazy, greedy, vengeful little parasites. We could never and would never cast blame on an inventor who - faced with the dismal option of giving his or her work to such hyenas - would choose, instead, to 'take it to his grave'. On the contrary, nothing could be more adequate to this deserving epoch. But notice, further, the raft of distortions Rothwell insinuates in his paragraph: for Alexandra and I have given freely all the information there was to be given about the PAGD regime, in patents that we obtained and paid for - from our own pocket. And we have been no more afraid of 'MIBs', than of mickey-mouse bully-boys, or ghosts or ETs or remote viewers. Yes, a technology like the PAGD, or any other one comparable to it, is enormous power. And yes, whatever it is one might call 'humanity' has simply failed to rise to too many occasions of critical groundbreaking technological insights - other than irresponsibly. Do I need to remind my readers that we continue to live under constant threat of nuclear warfare - be it from the Al-Queda, North Korea, Iran, the Hindu-Pakistani conflict, the failure of so many disarmament pacts, or the growing military and economic hegemony of China? Or forget about nuclear war - what about the surge of terrorism and suicidary fanatics that are more than willing to simply blow themselves up, together with everything else? What about the corruption, greed and malevolence that, each day, architect more corporate debacles à la Enron? Or the systemic corruption of public institutions, where every small fish secretly also takes its own cut? What about the car, a technology which has become among the greatest of all the modern sources of pollution? What about the explosion of surveillance video cameras, which has now created an ambiance of permanent spying upon all human beings in every activity of civil society? Are these the technological developments of a responsible society, one capable of assuming the responsibility for its technological achievements, capable of firmly developing technologies for benign and not malignant purposes, capable of forming and educating its members properly? Is even Vortex an example of just such a responsible, self- regulated community?
The answer, O Rothwell, is precisely what your own masters think: NO. And that is why the elites can reason, without difficulty, that some head, even if it be a rat's head, must be kept on to minimally steer this 'sea of humanity'.
In fact, your execrable behaviour, Mr. Rothwell, is precisely a prime example of this irresponsibility. You are a prime example of why our societies have States and do appear to need to have laws. Because people like you would destroy everything, the good and the bad - irrespectively. They never look back. They are constitutionally unable to admire or respect anything. They never admit their mistakes. They never say the simple words "I'm wrong!" And if they do, they do it like the stuffed crocos they are, tongue-in-cheek, to signify that it's all crass theatre and nothing more.
NO, this theatre and everything else, is about LIFE, ITS POLITICS, ITS KNOWLEDGE, AND ITS VALUE!!! YOU MAY NOT IMPUNELY MISREPRESENT MY LIFE OR MY LIFE'S WORK, NOR ALEXANDRA'S LIFE AND HER WORK!
Let me be quite clear on this. I never, at any time, said to Rothwell, or to anyone else, that 'humanity was not ready for my genius'. This is only one more of his seemingly endless embittered attributions to me of statements never uttered by me. If Alexandra and I have indeed built on the shoulders of giants, the likes of which this planet may well not see for a long time to come, and if much of what we have unearthed and carried forward from them was permitted to lie fallow, was not systematically investigated but was instead discarded, misrepresented and reviled by little men - every bit as arrogantly bigoted and ignorant as Rothwell - this is purely and simply a constatation of fact; as is the statement that current society is clearly not able to take responsibility for its technological achievements. It hardly takes a genius to reach such self-evident conclusions.
There are no things that 'Man was meant not to know'. There is only cultivated stupidity and greed in Man that prevents him from actually knowing. The problem, therefore, is Man - the structure, called Man, of intransigent beliefs, sentiments, ideation, sexuality. And it is a cultural problem, not one of the animal nature of human beings, not per se, but one of the cultural form of Man. The problem is not some God or other, and is certainly not Nature.
The problem is even rather easy to identify: here is an exchange between Jed and Gene, on 30 Jan 2002. Gene wrote:
"As far as I know, neither you nor Hal Puthoff have downloaded any of the comprehensive EXPERIMENTAL and theoretically linked modules of the Correas - the ones that have nominal charges for downloading. Have you? Perhaps that is why you don't understand any of it. You haven't read it."
"This begs the question. There is a huge amount of free, immediately accessible material on the Web site, but several people have commented that it is incomprehensible. If the authors have written comprehensive experimental papers using understandable scientific terminology, they should post portions of these papers (preferably the Abstracts) and put them on the free portions of web site. This may entice people to buy the other papers that offered [sic] at a nominal price."
The truth is, every time our work is mentioned, Rothwell may be counted upon to compulsively blurt out that "several people have commented that it is incomprehensible". That there are thousands of readers who do not find it incomprehensible and, in fact, have taken the time to make intelligent comments or inquiries to Akronos Publishing - is supposed to be discarded on the basis of Rothwell's persistent reference to his illusive "several people". If he and his "several people" are unwilling or unable to read our work - and we do indeed wonder if they are not simply his fellow Wart Tech hotdogs like Quinney or Reiter, etc - this is hardly surprising. For they have neither the qualifications nor the intent to read or study it. We should have thought, however, that even Rothwell was not so dense as to not have realized that abstracts 'using understandable scientific terminology' for all available papers have indeed, since Day 1, been posted on the free portions of the Akronos website - exactly as he 'advises'. No, he doesn't bother to look. He only and always bothers to misinform.
But if Rothwell and his Wart Tech cronies, who are unable to read even the free material provided by Akronos, imagine their idiot provocations will result in their receiving - also free - access to the Aetherometry monographs, then they've certainly got another thing coming. For they should know this: neither Alexandra nor I, nor Akronos, ever even ventured the notion that the revenue from these monographs would help fund our research. Hardly. Though Akronos is a successful venture, its revenue pays for nothing more than Akronos, ie the effort to begin to put this knowledge out, to make it public. An effort which, if Rothwell were not such a viper, he should have wholeheartedly welcomed - for it is proof of our own effort to release much of the information regarding a variety of technologies we have investigated over more than two decades! But you see, malignant people like Rothwell first insult you by calling you a genius, then trash you for not having published your seminal findings, and finally, when you do, they act as if you haven't - they no longer remember where the bookstore is, what title it was they were looking for, where the abstracts can be found, and so on. And besides, if it's so good, they 'reason', they should just be given it for free. Yes, Rothwell has also written that if research is not on the Internet and it's not free, he will neither look for it, nor read it.
Unmoved by his own ignorance, Rothwell dispenses still more disingenuity, on the same occasion:
"In particular, people have complained that Correa has apparently coined nonstandard terminology to describe physical phenomena (or alleged phenomena). Perhaps these phenomena are not described anywhere in ordinary literature, so there are no normal terms for them. In that case, Correa should include an on-line glossary [and, by the way, we do include a short one!]."
Yes, Rothwell's 'people' always prefer to complain (to him???) rather than attempt to inform themselves. But 'nonstandard terminology'? I, for one, would like to know what that is these days, when theories proliferate like flies and 'discoveries' are a dime a dozen! But the best thing is to see Rothwell making these judgements without having read a single line of our written experimental work!
It so happens that all the new terms we have introduced are properly and adequately defined in each of those monographs which Rothwell and his 'people' have not read and are so stingy about acquiring. But short of actually reading the material, we suppose they will have to resort to some form of ESP (they should hire the ghostbanger Reiter for this, if they haven't already) to glean their meaning. This way they could read through all our publications and satisfy their so-called 'interest' without ever having to pay the Akronos bloodsuckers. It's even fashionable these days - it is called remote viewing...
Ah, take note and heed, young inventors and scientists, of the troupe of clowns you will be faced with at Vortex: they are not even your peers - just anglers, promoters, 'engineers' bent on a good vampire meal.
But also, remember these words: on the day when the tide will turn in favour of Aetherometry, or even before - because indeed some of them still have a little instinct left in their noses - you will see how they will begin, in their awkward Sinatra fashion, to copy and distort our work, on the PAGD, on the Aether Motor, on the Stirling engine, on negative gravity, on the serum-free medium, on erythroleukemia, and so on. In fact, they have already begun:
Douglas Marett obtained at least one grant, if not two, from the NRC in Canada to 'improve' upon our reactors. Whatever he did with those monies only he can tell;
DeMeo, in his recent Pulse of the Planet #5, came up with his own version of the OR Motor. Unfortunately, it's nonsense;
Reiter recently declared that he had veered away from alien abductions towards Puthoff, but also, he says, towards Aspden;
the other Marett and Courtney Baker each have their own version of an orgone radiation detector;
Ohmori and Mizuno found an abnormal glow discharge in water (too bad it was an arc);
Recently, Rothwell even posted a "technically CF'' paper from two Chinese researchers which, the cosmic-ray delirium aside, almost sounds like a metallographic investigation of autoelectronic emission in the PAGD. (Is it that CF also ambitions to have discovered what the Virgin Mary already has - the PAGD?).
In the words of the abstract presented at ICCF-9:
"Analysis of vortex dynamics with wide range from pitting corrosion of electrochemical system, laboratory plasma, tornado, to quasar spiral model with extremely high energy cosmic rays in the center region, leads to a conclusion for that vortex dynamics creates torsion fields responding to the anomalous effects."
We are joyful that these - clearly autoelectronic - emissions are seen as evidence for micro-tornadic formation. But why is our work not referenced? Maybe it is in the paper.
But there is still more - for this should be a record so complete that every member of Vortex will feel shame at having tolerated the insidious excursions of Jed Rothwell, a Literature student who cannot read:
"The purpose of a web site or publication is to communicate with the public. This site fails to communicate, even to an audience of experts well versed in scientific terminology and concepts, therefore it should be revised. Correa is not the only scientist who does a poor job communicating. It would be to his advantage if someone friendly with him (such as Gene) were to inform him of the problem."
Communication! It is precisely communication that bully-boys like Rothwell choke in order to thrive. Whatever they lay their confusionistic paws on, becomes incommunicable. Their strategy is not that of learning, as humbly as need be, but of creating a vacuum around those scientific developments which, for personal, commercial and whimsical reasons, they choose to target: a strategy of holding inventors incommunicado, choked by some band of ragged dogs running around without a leash. Notice, dear reader, that if their objections were scientifically formulated and presented with less tartuffian fanfare, I would not fault them for anything. But they weren't nor could have been - since the object of the Rothwellian fanfare was, all along, to create on Vortex a vacuum of distortions and misinformation about our work - along with all the false expectations and the rage that goes with them. One must cultivate the rage - that's Rothwell's motto, essentially.
Here is the apogee of his recent attack. In response to Gene's comment -
"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.'"
Rothwell responds -
"But they do. Everyone does. People who do not contribute to society have no right to eat. Society -- meaning farmers, shopkeepers, garbage collectors, doctors and the rest of us -- keeps the Correas alive. If they are not interested in commercialization, or they do not care for money, they should give away the technology. Countless scientists have done that in the past, and earned their keep."
Come, come, Rothwell - such a blatantly stalinistic speech. Plenty of people have 9 to 5 jobs and contribute nothing - not to society or 'humanity', those nebulous and elusive notions - but nothing to their own lives, their own communities and the lives of others. Neither Arbeit nor welfare are based upon any standard of "contribution to society". Labour is a political and social invention - like capital is. People in a capitalist society don't work because they 'owe' it to anyone, or because they 'deserve' to work. In the Gulag of the USSR, yes, once, as well as in the Gulag of the People's Republic of China. That, yes.
But indeed, I owe nothing to any nebulous Rothwellian notion of 'humanity'. Moreover, I am not so deluded as to believe that I have the power to change the 'world'. What's that - the world? There's a whole world beyond and beneath the human world. And I know, just as anyone else may, that nothing ever changes because an inventor discovered this or that, no matter how useful this or that may be. Discoveries, if they are to be implemented and to be of use to a society, must bring it an advantage. In recent History, that has meant a military advantage - one over the competitors, or a new weapon. This is the filter of all your famous, tediously touted examples, O Rothwell. Aviation triumphed because of its application to warfare. Einstein's Relativity is fashionable (even though no one reads him - but they have ceased complaining about the new concepts, methods and terminology) because there was an Atom Bomb and America fortunately resisted persecuting its minorities, specifically its Jews. Neither the transistor nor the computer nor the Internet would exist today but for the power of the American war machine. All of your examples, Rothwell, are nothing more than feel-good distortions of History. And you dispense them by the bushel:
"The Correas should do more to encourage replications. If I owned one of their gadgets, I would know how to encourage replications. I would soon have hundreds of thousands of people frantically working on the device. I would use the same methods that worked with the airplane in 1908, the transistor in 1952, and the personal computer in 1975. I would avoid the mistakes that prevented interest in the airplane from 1903 to 1908." (May 30, 2002)
Well, if I were in some Army I would certainly give you a job to so disinform, if need be. But I am not - and in these times of an ever-imminent war, I view your easy statements with great suspicion. Who was it that recently wanted to have the US Government nationalize and expropriate all unexploited free-energy patents that work? The fellow had an actual list of patents - from which we were thankful to see ours omitted - that he thought should be expropriated, just as in times of war. In fact, I will do even better - my next set of patents I will offer to the USPTO in the American-only, nonpublication stream - and if ever the US Government asks me to keep them secret, as a national security item, with a reasonable deal to be made of it, I will comply. How about that, Mr. Rothwell? Instead of demanding any more from me, you will have to demand it from Uncle Sam, since he is bound to get it.
All that I or Alexandra can do to contribute to a different world is what we are doing and do best, Mr. Block Bully: the research, and the publication of those findings of a few lifetimes that deserve to be published. And neither you nor anyone else can accuse me, or us - other than disingenuously - of not being responsible and careful about our work or our publications. We have 'contributed' more than most, certainly more than you or a billion of your clones. Let Messiahs and Buddhas and Führers and Presidents and Popes and Managers change the world. It is a job for anglers, and politicians are certainly the most evolved of the angler variety. Let the leaders lead - it's their problem, no? If they led, and led well, and were proud of their achievements and we could concur with that pride, would they need morons like you to mix up and blur their trails? And let the voters vote - for, at the end of the day, they only get the leaders they deserve and love.
Continuing with the rest of that May 1, 2002, exchange:
Gene - "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)."
Rothwell - "Then their parents failed to teach them the most fundamental lessons of life. [...] I see no evidence that Mills or Bearden have anything. Mills has spent millions in commercial R&D without producing a product, and he has missed many announced deadlines. Any businessman would agree that is a strong warning signal that he is in deep trouble, and he cannot do what he claimed. Based on Bearden's letters to me last year, Mizuno and I agree he is probably incompetent. He does not appear to understand elementary physics or engineering."
Is this what Mizuno had in mind, to turn Rothwell into his mouthpiece? Is he one of those famous Rothwellian 'people'?
But hear me, Mr. Rothwell - hear what it is I owe your 'world'. Hear a "most fundamental lesson of life". For it is my turn to respond to the sleazily moralistic propositions you have been spouting so freely about my personas.
I owe the world for the fact that I was born in a fascist country.
I owe the world for having made me a refugee.
I owe the world for having made me a deserter.
I owe the world for the chlorpromazine that destroyed my best friend.
I owe the world for killing so many of my relatives and one of my best friends with cancer.
I owe the world because it infects guests, friends and relatives with greed and feeding frenzies.
I owe the world for the high cost of vitamins, minerals and essential acids.
I owe the world for obliging me to eat irradiated and genetically modified so-called food.
I owe the world for obliging me to breathe endless car exhaust.
I owe the world for providing me with unwatchable television and unreadable newspapers.
I owe the world for placing cabals on my path on whom I am obliged to wage war.
I owe the world for never having sponsored any of my work.
I owe the world for the fact that it costs $120K+ to obtain international patent coverage for one year for one patent.
I owe the world for having made Vortex into a gathering place for inept engineers and fools.
I owe the world for its virulence, injustice and stupidity.
I owe the world for all the good leaders of men it has provided.
I owe the world for being Christian in spirit and regularly producing terrorists on wheels.
I owe the world for the fact that the writings of the best thinkers have been distorted, suppressed, burned, rewritten, banned, mocked, misunderstood.
I owe the world for always providing forums for ignorant vipers like yourself to smear the hard work of others.
Shall I continue? I think not. I could fill a Bible's worth with it.
So then - why are you crying about inventors taking their secrets to the grave? Self- suppression is just the natural prolongation of a world where everyone wants to be a little fascist and exercise some power (oh yes, to "change the world" - and oh yes, for the better!) over some other poor devil who is still worse off. Why then can't writers and inventors exercise a bit of that good-old fascism upon themselves, their bodies and their work? Is there some law that forbids it? And if there were, or might be, why should they listen to laws which anglers and promoters so freely pass - these strange days - with the tacit support of silenced majorities?
I owe many things to many individuals, communities and even institutions. But I owe nothing to your 'world', O Rothwell! Nor to the many people - quite like you - who owe me much, but have failed to pay - other than with lies, misrepresentations and schemes. No, it don't matter - because that 'world' owes me nothing and has never paid me anything. So there - that's what I think of your world and your stalinistic godhead blackmail chip - 'humanity'. Yes, butter that world of yours which is so stuffed with beliefs and belief systems:
Gene - "They have resurrected the line of work that Tesla and Reich began."
Rothwell - "I do not believe Telsa [sic] or Reich either."
Who could possibly care about what you believe, little man, when you believe in that 'world' to which I and so many, many others owe nothing? Look - there's a sea of humanity outside your window - what does it owe to your world? Only others like you, your semblances, share your shallow beliefs. Sure, you might be many or even very many - since reproduction and infection of the species is, in essence, what you have contributed to your 'world' at the end of the day. You will always be ignorant and proud of it, little man.
Gene - "They have published exemplary scientific articles on experiment and theory"
Rothwell - "These articles are not couched in normal scientific terminology. The scientists I have spoken with cannot make head or tail of them [is this Mizuno and Storms, again?]. Perhaps the articles are correct, but there is no way the rest of us can judge them, or learn from them. It would be a good idea for the Correas to try to express these concepts in more conventional terms. New scientific breakthroughs have often been expressed in older terms, even when the breakthroughs made the older terms obsolete. See, for example, Franklin's descriptions of electricity, or Dyson's restatement of Feynman's laws."
Let me say this: if at some point these alleged 'scientists' would care to identify themselves (so that we all know they exist and are not simply concoctions of Rothwell's vindictive imagination: who are these scientists that so cowardly hide behind your skirts? Who? - I cannot hear!?) and address their criticisms in concrete terms (charges such as not using "normal scientific terminology" are too ludicrous and nebulous a notion to even respond to) - so that it is clear they have actually based their comments on reading, and not on some private agenda or other - then I, and we, would consider responding. Otherwise, such 'appraisals' can merit nothing more than what I give them: contempt.
Do you know what the Great Musashi would make of them and their court intrigues? Jambon, my friend, jambon mincé.
Since when must one couch matters in "normal" terminology? What is "normal" terminology? What does my research have to do with the "normal" terminology of quarks, of massbound electron theory, of stationary forces that require no energy displacement, of orgone particles that are disembodied monopolar electrostatic charges, of four-dimensional SpaceTime maps, of black holes and time warps, of infinitized equations that must be normalized, of electromagnetic theories that do not even know what the difference is between B and H and their curls, of probability models that have failed to explain even the basic mechanism for the production of light, of theories of electrostatics that have failed to notice the hidden gravitational component of the spontaneous electroscopic discharge?? What??
You tell me - what are "conventional terms", when massfree electrical charges are not even known by your 'world' of physics? You tell me - O smallest of men! What am I to do with powers that exist in nature and that you suspect are there - but which you fear and want to choke? And when you do not want to choke them, you want a free lunch, a free and easy ride on the inventor's coat tails? A little recipe for saving your humanity that you can click and download for free to whip up in your garage any night of the week with a few components you picked up at Radio Shack. Answer that, if you can, moron, with any face-saving grace you may find as your poor excuse for being alive as a human being.
Let me tell you what I think about this miasma of 'arguments' against our work that you have made it your business to excrete - they are not just poor, base, ill-informed and stupid; they are also absurd. It is the same absurdity that leads others, from this vacuum of science and this serene plenitude of imbecilic and erroneous beliefs, precisely to social movements of fanatics - to fascism, the Taliban, the destructive little mobs ensconced in Vortex. These are the products of Rothwellian-like absurdities in their very "real" world.
Gene - "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."
Rothwell - "No, this is morally abhorrent. It is like withholding food when you have a huge surplus and thousands of people are starving. Property rights are not absolute. They are an artifact of society, like corporations. They are often revoked or overridden for larger purposes, such as emergencies. When your neighbor's house is on fire, your neighbor has a right to use your telephone and your garden hose, even though they are your property. If you refuse to let him use the telephone, you are guilty of depraved indifference to life or negligent homicide. In the laws of Massachusetts this is defined as, 'a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable man would exercise in the same situation.' 30,000 to 50,000 people die every week for lack of energy. Their right to survive far outweighs the Correa's intellectual property rights. This situation would be a moral outrage if the Correas claims were true, but I do not think they are, so it is only a farce."
And so this apparent parano arrogates for himself nothing short of the Judgement of God. Only Stalinists of the worst type would insist on such goose-stepping enormities. Who, I might ask, is stopping any serious laboratory - whether private, or in an academic, corporate or government institution - from honestly, and in this same spirit of 'care' for the dying thousands that Rothwell so indignantly bleats for, reproducing any of the patents I have co-authored? It's not in my power to stop them - we don't even own any patents in most of your 'world', O Rothwell! Nor is it I or Alexandra who prevent repulsive little men like you from learning - instead of 'thinking' or 'believing', as you also call this servile activity you indulge in, of passing judgement on matters admittedly well beyond your learning, simply to suit your (and your 'scientists''?) own squalid and hidden agendas. And as for the '30,000 to 50,000' figure Rothwell so meticulously invokes, nothing could be more ridiculous - for he may as well say that everyone dies of lack of energy, since wars are fought for it, people die of overwork and exhaustion, and every disease betrays some critical lack of energy. Well then, perhaps I must be guilty of killing them all.
If Rothwell needs to get biblical about those who kill people with the energy business, he doesn't have far to look. But there's no blood on my hands. The blood is on the hands of your social institutions, Mr. Rothwell. And when it comes to killing, Vortex is a pretty good circus where character assassination and murder is sneakily conducted - it now appears - as a routine exercise and a check on the dog's dentition.
Somewhat hilariously, the Warts do pretend to be thoughtful and critical readers of modern science and technology. And, the truth is, I would be the first to welcome a thoughtful criticism based upon (1) a careful reading, (2) an effort to understand, (3) nondogmatic thought, (4) openness to new concepts and functions, (5) careful experimental reproduction devoid of ulterior motivation. But if there are any such readers out there, they are certainly not the ones who incessantly stuff the Vortex archives with generally tedious and useless drivel. On the other hand - nobody on Vortex exposes its abysmal quality either.
The fact of the matter is that on Vortex, with respect to our work, there has never been the slightest interest in, or openness to, any sort of honest consideration of its many claims and discoveries. Quite the contrary. Even Mike Carrell, who studied and observed the PAGD, including a complete oscilloscopic demonstration, and was also given a demonstration of the Aether Motor, then in its early stages, as well as free access to the Akronos Monographs - never downloaded any, that I know.
From day one, Rothwell has made it his personal business to provide a floor, in Vortex, for Marett, Quinney & Co to contaminate the waters, and then run with the ball himself, passing it back to Marett and Kooistra - of all people - when needed. Yes, Rothwell is one of those fools who believes that the enemy of his enemy is his 'friend'. He's determined to slobber shamelessly over anyone who supports him in his malignant project to malign our work. And all because I told him his 'theory' of invention and inventors was - what it obviously is - braindead, sick and neurotic.
Yes, for whatever it may have once been, or intended to be, Vortex lacks every one of the qualities I enumerated above that might have made it an interesting forum. Make your own constatation: instead of careful reading there's no reading at all - but constant facile jumps to less than half-baked conclusions. Instead of any effort to understand, one finds only asinine intrigues, and anecdotal 'evidence' (as if such twaddle could be considered 'evidence') for supposed positive or negative replications. Instead of nondogmatic thought - the characteristic of an open mind - one finds, center stage, Rothwellian dogmatism, a shabby ideology of bully-boys and half-bowl experimenters, complete with martian droppings and licks by Znidarsic. Instead of curiosity and openness about concepts and functions, one finds only whining: about the need for simplifying matters (Sinatra's way), about the difficulty of nonstandard terminology, about unwelcome, arduous concepts that would (god forbid!) require time, effort and study, and so on - reminding one of nothing so much as a bunch of ill-weaned babies. And instead of careful verification, well, you've got what you've got, nothing. As for the motivation, I shall leave that one to those who care to watch the Vortex side show and those who may read these lines.
Gene - "Also you should acknowledge that you do not have enough scientific understanding to evaluate their work..."
Rothwell - "Anyone with a high school level knowledge of physics can evaluate their work. They claim their device produces excess energy. They claim they have kept battery packs running indefinitely. I can understand that easily! The details that supposedly make it work are over my head, but they are irrelevant."
Oh, what extraordinary patience Gene must have had to have suffered the vacuous, self- indulgent thrashings of this moron. Of course, any serious reader of our work knows that neither I nor my partner or co-workers have ever claimed we have kept batteries running indefinitely. That would be nice, alright. But it's only one more Rothwellian fiction. Another gratuitous fabrication. And it demonstrates - quite eloquently - that Rothwell understood nothing of our PAGD work, not even that fateful 1998 lecture regarding the ping-pong system. But if the details are, as he admits, over his head, how can he, in any honesty, state that he can evaluate our work (which, he implies, reduces to the PAGD converter)? The fact is, he can't. And so this disingenuous assertion that he can 'easily' evaluate our work while being admittedly unable to grasp any of its details (which, by the way, are 'irrelevant'!) is only one more example of the Rothwellian 'scientific logic', or more precisely, the lack thereof. For which no one calls him to the stone. Were he not such a malicious little slanderer, he would almost be funny. But just see where his consumptive hatred of me now takes him -
Gene - "and you have unfortunately and carelessly burned your bridges with them."
Rothwell - "It was not careless. It was a calculated act, the culmination of many years of watching them in disgust. I stand by it. There are three possibilities:
1. They are liars and they have faked their results.
2. They are insane.
3. They are morally depraved monsters who withhold vitally important technology.
I do not want to be associated with people in any of these categories. The Correas' behavior over the last decade convinces me that even if they have something, they will never reveal it or allow others access to it, so they might as well have nothing. They are tantamount to a fraud. Like Moray and so many others, they are determined to take this technology to the grave with them. They will succeed in that, and nothing else."
And with this vituperative assault, Rothwell squarely crosses the border between stupidity and sheer malice. For, in light of his grossly and admittedly insufficient knowledge of our process, there are a myriad of alternative hypotheses he could have entertained - but he specifically chose not to do so. One is not even clear as to precisely what it is that Rothwell so carelessly blanketed - since 'the Correas' have many technologies, some patented, others not, as well as patents with other scientists. It doesn't matter - whatever it is, whether it is the PAGD, the Aether Motor, the Stirling/HYBORAC, or a simple replication of the Reich-Einstein experiment, only the three above judgements are possible: (1) liars and frauds, (2) insane, or (3) morally depraved monsters.
Here, exhibited on a public forum, for all who care to see and read, is the shameful, libelous, slanderous, defamatory, malignant performance of this Rothwell: the Correas could not be, for instance, even just honestly wrong; no, that would violate Rothwell's 'ethics'. They could not be, for instance, wrong on some things and not on others; no, that, too, would violate his 'ethics'. They could not be so demanding that no capitalist to date had the balls to take on such a radical project. No, that, too, is not conceivable - for nobody in his 'right' mind could possibly have such standards anymore. They could perhaps even be dying of some disease, or be afflicted with problems of friends or relatives, and have better things to do than pursue paranoid dreams of changing some world, especially Rothwell's world. No, Bianca gracious!, have mercy! - this would be a crime against humanity, letting all those children die in Eritrea, or Ethiopia, or at your doorstep; not of hunger and denial of basic necessities, no, but from lack of energy - the energy the Correas hide in their marvelous tubes that are so costly to obtain, and so difficult to build properly, because it takes years of dedication and not just some immediate form of crazy-glue to put them together!
No, there are no alternative hypotheses that the intriguist and cowardly Rothwell can think of: including the possibility that 'the Correas' might be correct about their findings, part or all of them, and that their effort to commercialize and publicize these matters has been dogged and consistent. God no!, Heavens forfend! Any more than that 'the Correas' could be right, and acerbically accurate, about the real difficulties that face inventors - not to mention the adverse publicity, based on strict falsehoods, that is propagated in public by the likes of Rothwell and Marett in the hopes of choking any prospects of development and commercialization by inventors such as `the Correas'. No - you see, Rothwell will have any inventor believe that if serious capital is scarce or nonexistent, it is not because 'capitalists' have become so greedy as to demand instant satisfaction without having to spend a penny, but is, instead, solely and only the fault of the inventors. That's right, their fault for not having finished, mass- marketable products; their fault for not having money; their fault for trying to understand what they have - since, in Rothwell's book, understanding is quite irrelevant to the matter of 'having' or not 'having' 'something'.
Parenthetically, I have no doubt that among the reasons why Rothwell has so frequently found himself, and continues to find himself, led down the garden path by 'free energy' snake-oil vendors (a fact much bemoaned by him) is precisely that he aggressively lacks any basis whatsoever on which to form an intelligent assessment of whether a given idea for his holy grail 'gadget' could possibly have a scientific leg to stand on. Enraged by the notion that he should even attempt to develop such capacity for discernment, he simply chooses to believe or disbelieve - as his twisted 'ethics' or the applause of comfortable little alternative majorities may dictate. All the while, of course, raging against anyone who might deviate from the 'gadget ethic' toward that activity most reviled and condemned by him: the forging of intelligent scientific theory. After all, the Rothwellian gadget will simply and magically supplant the need for any sort of understanding on the part of its promoter/user.
At a later date, Rothwell tried feebly a form of backstep. In response to Gene's reference to "Jed Rothwell's slanderous attack", Rothwell pretended to interpret this as a suggestion that his (Rothwell's) criteria for verification of scientific claims were slanderous. Pure disingenuity - so characteristic of those who are determined to scurrilously disinform, all the while knowing that they can later blur their tracks by madly taping over every hole their adversary inevitably punctures into their sordid tissues of lies. No, Mr. Rothwell. What was slanderous was your hateful and intentionally limited three-fold alternative - for which we demand a public apology and a complete retraction. An apology for having gratuitously smeared my name! For having lied impunely to your audience! For the slander to which you have explicitly submitted not just myself, but my partner and lifetime companion, Alexandra! An immediate apology is not only in order - but long overdue!
Gene - "For the Correas it is science, not business first."
Rothwell - "People who are not interested in business should give away their discoveries, the way J. P. Joule, Roentgen, Einstein, the engineers who developed the Internet and so many others have done over the centuries."
No, people who are not interested in business may go into Arts, science, sports, you name it, rap music. But anyone who requires capital in order to carry his or her project forward, irrespective of the field of endeavour, knows only too well how they will have to bend over and go through some form of initiation - vaguely reminiscent of the initiation which Kubrick so clearly portrayed in his "Full Metal Jacket". Rituals of debasement or degradation. Indeed, Rothwell is just another 'killer' bred by the system, the system of these rituals. His three-fold 'alternative' that comprises the judgement he finds himself so compelled to make upon my life (of which he literally knows nothing), integrity (idem), motivation (idem), work (idem, idem), science and technologies (ditto) - as well as Alexandra's - is instructive (to say the least) about how the emotional plague proceeds, once in full swing. I am declared guilty by association with imaginary crimes. I am a murderer of virtual people...Sheer fanaticism!
It is clear that my passion, Alexandra's passion, and that of our co-workers, is science - and that our forays into business are merely a function of the pressing need for capital to extract means and technologies from that scientific pursuit. In those forays - and this is the very logic of the capitalism so adulated by Rothwellian types - we have no 'obligation' to disclose anything or to allow anything to be examined by any scientific peers, anglers, members of the sporting public, fans of the Rothwell or DeMeo clubs, and so forth. We have not enlisted, nor will we be drafted, into a soccer competition with the teams of other clubs, created for goodness knows what unsavory purpose! Our contribution - right or wrong - to science is already being published, to be read openly and in public. And this is not business, but science, which has been made public for everyone's careful scrutiny and has been submitted to a variety of reviews by many people I would not hesitate to call peers, such as Mr. Soudak, Dr. Mallove, Dr. Aspden, Prof. Tiller, Dr. Askanas, Prof. Axelrad, to name a few.
Furthermore, whatever publications I author and co-author are not business efforts; anyone and everyone is free to review them - but no one should (categorical imperative!) review them so freely as to dispense with actually reading them and with the very facts they concern and contain.
No business is, in our society and modern world, under any obligation whatsoever to reveal the innards of its methods, its science and technology. That's that.
However, Rothwell, the intriguist, already 'knows' ('believes' he knows) the reason why our PAGD technology has not yet been commercialized (even though, as usual, he smears and mixes up all our separate and distinct, very distinct, technologies). The reason, he teaches, must be one of four:
"1. It is being developed but I have not heard about it. This seems unlikely. Gene would have mentioned something, unless he is under n.d.a. Why would anyone hide the fact they are developing a product?"
2. The gadget does not actually work. I expect this is the problem.
3. The Correas are monumentally bad at attractive [sic] venture capital.
4. The Correas do not want to develop the gadget, and they have not searched for capital or they have turned down offers."
Let us first assure Rothwell that he need not worry - Labofex did continuously develop its technology, and several papers on the subject are scheduled for publication in the coming years. But if others are developing the PAGD technology for commercial applications, it is being done without our involvement. We know, or have known, of such projects in Canada, Hungary, Russia, Germany, China and Italy. Some - like Egely and Sapogin - have not hidden their efforts; others have.
As for 'the gadget' - well, there is no gadget, no final product, no toy. What there is, are bench apparatuses that demonstrate - in a variety of ways - the contributions from the vacuum medium to certain plasma discharges, the PAGD and the IVAD.
As to how good or bad we are at attracting venture capital - if we ourselves cannot judge that, even less can Rothwell. He doesn't have, nor has he ever had, any direct knowledge of our dealings, only indirect gossip. The fact is, we have never encountered a venture capitalist who knew how to conceive of anything outside of the framework of a rapid (6 month) half-baked, bargain-basement speculative venture for the production of a Radio Shack type gizmo. This is standard fare for a new cell phone design or an updated computer accessory, but entirely insufficient for the proper development of pioneering power generation systems, their educational and scientific aspects alone being significantly more than mere accessories to the propaganda which every business must make for itself. If Rothwell would speak of contributions, then let us ask: where is the vision, the commitment of these supposed Venture Capitalists? Someone recently inquired on Vortex whether VC stood for Vietcong. And he or she (I think he, for how many she's does Vortex have? Zero?) was right - for there is no Venture Capital for alternative energy projects. It's all feel-good hype. There are only promoters with their angles and their absolute requirements - which include muzzling the inventor and giving themselves airs of having what it takes, when, in fact, their pockets are woefully empty. We remain convinced that if we ever come across a VC or an entrepreneur who will prove to have the balls, as well as the intelligence, to run the risks essential for accomplishing a worthwhile vision, we will have no difficulty in recognizing him.
The truth is, Rothwell doesn't know a single one either. Ha! and there I got him by his own friggin' balls, no?
Benefactors who are willing both to take the time required and to run risks when contributing to science, technology and the common good, do not abound in these days of beta releases, speculation and much avarice. But thereby also, any deemed moral obligation or 'ethical responsibility' attributed to scientists and inventors - as the duty to sacrifice their livelihood, income, property, friendships, health, sanity, and so on, all in the name of some mythical gizmo - is so disproportionate as to reveal its real nature as a malignant and spurious demand: a method, in fact, to demoralize those who research honestly.
Yes, we have searched for capital, high and low, left and right even. And no, we have never refused to give patient and serious consideration to any offer for development of our PAGD technology that could be intelligently negotiated and made a minimum of sense. Not yet. And that sense only we, de facto and de jure, can and do define - not some Rothwell or some Quinney or some Kooistra or some Marett with their twisted hidden agendas, their Destiny missions, their gurus and Doctor X's, their Dykstra's wars, their Calvinist Reformed Churches, their Pheromone Science, their masters who keep them fed and well eaten.
On May 30, 2002, Rothwell offered further embellishments on his moral indictment:
Gene - "But in that case, Jed suggests that since their business plans and disclosures -- what little he knows of them (!) - are not to his liking, because they 'withhold vitally important technology,' the Correas are 'morally depraved monsters.' "
Rothwell - "The statement has nothing to do with what I like. Their business plans have failed. The technology has not been developed, sold or adapted, or even replicated. It is not in use anywhere in the world. Therefore some other business plan or strategy is called for. Continuing with this strategy is tantamount to withholding the product from the market. If the product is real, this is like withholding a cure for AIDS for business reasons. Most people and lawmakers agree that would be morally depraved. If you have an effective AIDS cure and you are honestly unable to sell it, that it not depraved, it is inept. It is hard to believe anyone could fail to sell the PAGD, but who knows? Perhaps the Correas are so inept they could not sell a sandwich to a starving man."
Now notice the repeated, purposefully inflammatory comparison to AIDS. Only people who choose to remain steadfastly ignorant of the etiology and the syndrome nature of AIDS, ignorant of the fact that HIV is not the cause but a symptom of the disease, or who believe and make-believe - for purposes of securing money for their research carried out in the name of humanity - that a cure for AIDS can be and will be found along the lines of a vaccine for polio, would resonate with such a preposterous comparison. Indeed, the notion of a simple vaccine against HIV is a complete pie-in- the-sky. So, Rothwell's comparison, aside from being outrageous, is also stupid - once again - and ill-informed about the biology of retroviruses, the etiology of the 'disease', basic immunology and hematology. Nor will any amount of cocktail changes or 'adjustments' cure AIDS either.
Were any of our technologies like what is currently meant by 'a cure for AIDS', then they would be truly nothing, and Rothwell would lose precisely the essence of the analogy he so badly needs to buttress his ignominious indictment.
Were it not sufficiently revolting that this very little man, Rothwell, is unable to separate his own base feelings of resentment towards me from judgements of my work, the fact that he then goes on to attempt to smear the integrity of Alexandra, of Gene Mallove, of Harold Aspden, of any and all of the fine, competent and hard working researchers and thinkers that have helped make my ongoing efforts possible, is simply unforgivable. Which is not to say that Rothwell isn't indeed owing all of us a sincere, public apology for his reckless slander. We are all waiting.
And take heed, Rothwell crapule, of your own sense of morality - that of selling sandwiches to a starving man. Proud of his sick rhetoric Rothwell adds:
"No, depravity follows logically. If they [the Correas] are technically correct in their scientific findings they are depraved by definition, in my opinion. All statements about depravity are matters of opinion. Morality does not exist in nature. It is a social & human construct."
Rothwell's neat and injurious box: if we are correct about our findings, we are depraved by definition. Yes, morality is a social construct, but one obviously that did not manage to succeed in teaching you manners, O Rothwell! But here, for an eternity to come, stand your own words - where you freely dispense your 'moral' condemnations with a 'logic' of hatred that only your odious kind is privy to.
In that same post of May 30, 2002, Rothwell further 'explained' how 'the Correas' are a fraud:
Gene - "Toward what end he thinks the Correas would even attempt to 'fake their results' escapes me..."
Rothwell - "The reasons are obvious to any businessman. Researchers everywhere have been known to fake results, even in conventional research recently at Bell Labs. If Mallove does not understand why people often fake results he should not attempt to verify results by visiting labs.'
Gene - "Believe me, if anyone had been financially screwed by the Correas, I would be among the first to hear about it."
Rothwell - "That is not the issue, but in any case both the perpetrators and victims often keep financial fraud secret."
Gene - "How preposterous to imagine that such a mountain of well-integrated work should be aimed at a fraudulent scheme!"
Rothwell - "It isn't preposterous. This does not follow. Most fraudulent schemes at places like Enron are backed by mountain of conventional, believable research or existing, conventional technology. Many legitimate companies do what Enron claimed they were doing."
Gene - "First of all, the Correas have already contributed MASSIVELY to society with their research, their publications, and patents."
Rothwell - "No, they have not. No one has replicated, and no machines based on this technology have been sold or used. Perhaps they have tried to contribute, but so far they have failed."
And so forth. Someone should tell this quadruped Rothwell that, if only world saving 'gadgets' or 'gizmos' or machines qualify as contributions 'to society', then the smashing majority of human kind, himself included, has contributed nothing. Zilcho. Published reports, patents, a few lifetimes of patient and dedicated research are dismissed by this ignoramus, out of hand, as a "failure". Pfut! Is this what Ed Storms, Hal Puthoff, Mizuno, and still others, think? Why do they not state it like this also - in these absurd and brash terms? Is it because they, too, have no gizmo to show for their efforts; or is it in their interest to let Rothwell pursue his dirty work? And if, like us, they disagree, and vehemently so, with the bully-boy tactics and peremptory idiocies of Rothwell - how is it that they have him so calibrated that they can afford to tolerate his sordid activities? And even excuse them? Is there any excuse whatsoever for the reams of garbage and lies that Rothwell has authored on Vortex?
And when Rothwell, in one and the same breath, viciously slanders the Correas and freely invokes Storms - on the same Vortex forum attended by Storms - intimating that Storms had laid claim to an "alternative" (the suggestion being, of course, to a 'better') explanation of our PAGD technology - we assume this means one that takes no recourse to a new electrodynamics, such as Aspden's, nor to Aether Spin - doesn't Storms then have a public responsibility to say something about it? To react to having his name invoked in this context, and to describe his alternative hypothesis in as careful and plausible a manner as we have done in presenting ours? Or is he also in Rothwell's pocket? Does he benefit in some tangible way from Rothwell's incessant misrepresentations? Here is Rothwell's statement, in the same May 30, 2002 post:
"Even if it turns out that the gadget [meaning PAGD] does work, that does not prove it has anything to do with the aether. Storms and others have suggested alternative hypotheses."
If such is true, then what is preventing Storms from presenting it publicly? Is he also hiding behind Rothwell's froth?
Note, also, Rothwell's "and others" in the above quote. Such invocations of unspecified multitudes who supposedly back up his claims is a favorite with Rothwell, as it is with Kooistra. In the same Rothwell post, we read:
"Every scientist I have communicated with except Mallove and Aspden has told me they cannot make head or tail of the Correa web page material. That does not prove the material is meaningless, but it does indicate a failure to communicate."
I simply love this - when the inability or unwillingness of a student to make the effort required to learn the new language of a particular discipline becomes, instead, the failure, on the part of the instructor, to communicate. Yes, there are uninstructive instructors, but I hardly believe I qualify as one of them, Mr. Rothwell!
And how is it, by the way, that the scientists who have read - and understood - our work, have no difficulty in identifying themselves, while Mr. Rothwell's mystery 'advisors' always prefer to remain in the shadows?
But since Rothwell makes much of his communications with Mizuno and Storms - is he speaking here in their names also? Have they told him that they have read our material and cannot understand any of it? At the time of Rothwell's writing, Storms still had not read a single one of our monographs. As for Mizuno, he was probably disqualified long before the start line - in the English, boy, just the English!
And if these gentlemen that Rothwell so freely invokes would have the courage of standing up and naming themselves, then they better be ready to also subscribe to what Rothwell says next:
Gene - "Scientific arguments that utterly dismantle a prevailing physics paradigm cannot be simple..."
Rothwell - "Of course they can! Evolution, thermodynamics and special relativity were quite simple. All of the examples in Kuhn's book were simple."
But hear, oh hear me fellow scientists - if you have the courage and decency to do so! Now we have another author Rothwell has never understood, but whose name he freely takes in vain. For the whole point of Kuhn's argument is that there was nothing 'simple' about those theories to their contemporaries (how could revolutionary or pioneering thought possibly be perceived as 'simple' in its own time? Only the likes of Rothwell could make up such idiocies) and there is nothing simple about dismantling the resistances of an epoch to new discoveries and new forms of thought. The reason Rothwell thinks these scientific theories were "simple" is that the mainstream science of his own time, the one he is supposedly familiar with and whose language he extols as "standard", has been shaped through an assimilation of these theories. But to declare them "simple" in disregard of this historic process of assimilation and the perspectival shift which it effects is simply a falsification. Listen to what Kuhn himself says about it:
"Entry into a discoverer's culture often proves acutely uncomfortable, especially for scientists, and sophisticated [or, in Rothwell's case, primitive and ignorant] resistance to such entry ordinarily begins with the discoverer's own retrospects and continues in perpetuity. [...] What could possibly be the cause? Why should so many scientists and also an occasional historian fight so hard, often without quite realizing they are doing so, to recast past developments in the language of modern concepts? Why should attempts to reconstruct a conceptual past in its own terms so often be regarded as subversive? Answers to those questions are to be sought in two directions. The first is independent of any special characteristics of science, and I shall here merely identify it. The second involves the sciences uniquely, and about it I shall say a bit more."
Kuhn speaks of the resistance of scientists and historians to enter into what is effectively 'an alien culture':
"Entry into another culture, scientific or not, is regularly resisted [...], and the standard form of resistance is to carry one's own culture with one and assume that the world conforms."
This is precisely what Reich meant by an emotional resistance to learning not just new aspects of 'things', processes or interactions that were previously unsuspected, but also new ways of thinking or even linking familiar relations or interactions: a characterological armor against the outside, and its vehicle, the outsider's thought, its systematics. The second, more complex set of causes for such resistance is that the very nature of science or the scientific process of discovery and confirmation, itself turns discoveries into what Kuhn called "extended processes", that ceaselessly revisit the same questions while displacing the perspective ever so slightly (where to - is still another question).
The reader may therefore make the constatation that there is nothing simple about science, and much warfare surrounding resistances to discovery and definitions of what the discovery is. And these resistances and oppositions are, not so much a function of an essential uncertainty of nature that makes science and its progress something difficult, as of a need to mythologize and mystify that appears to serve science by preserving, along with its authority, its seminal errors.
Rothwell's proceeds with his daemonization of our work:
"The rest of Mallove's message covers various technical issues such as RF, which are over my head. I still think it would be a good idea for the Correas to check for RF with a meter, and I think they should make every effort to separate the effects of solar heating from the putative aether effect. Their devices seems to deliberately mix the two together, which is a bad technique. Sunlight is unpredictable noise, difficult to measure with accuracy, and it seems they make no effort to measure it. They should be conducting these experiments in a mineshaft, not outdoors! That is, assuming, aether energy penetrates the earth the way neutrinos do. I would not know if that is what they claim or not."
In other words, Rothwell chooses to take issue, not with anything we have said or written, but with what he imagines we might be saying and writing! He completely mixes up two distinct experiments - our stringent replication of the Reich-Einstein experiment (which was designed to minimize exposure to electromagnetic energy) and the HYBORAC/Stirling experiment which was designed to take maximum advantage of solar-atmospheric and earth-atmospheric radiations during daytime and nighttime. The absurd stew made by him certainly arises from his overt incomprehension of the differences and distinctions; but the motive for repeating these errors and carrying them to the point of slander - in such a militant fashion - is no longer one that can find justification in the mere fact of his ignorance.
3. Specific distortions of our science and technology - besides those hurled at our replication of the Reich-Einstein experiment, and our PAGD plasma technology
3.1. About Aetherometry
One could literally forget all the accomplishments of our experimental work - they could all be defective, for purposes of the present argument - and yet our understanding would not change, even one iota, with respect to the basic formal discoveries of Aetherometry. And this is so precisely because it is solidly anchored upon those findings that one considers the very bedrock of modern physics. This is what makes this all so very amusing. For the fundamental experimental data for Aetherometry have, in fact, already been provided by mainstream science. It is simply a real understanding of these data that has been missing. But it's there now for the taking by those whose interest in knowledge goes beyond endless mouse clicks and chatroom gossip.
Languages develop usages, concepts, colloquial expressions, each describing the singularity of a particular perspective. Knowing an idiom involves learning its perspective. No one can expect to engage with a science without first learning and developing its idiom, the language of that scientific perspective - and all the more so when it proposes a new mathematical language that systematizes that idiom. To test it, one must first be disposed to learn it - there is no way around this. Why would only inventors have to make such efforts? And if they have seen something new, why should they be inhibited from experimenting with languages - analytical and descriptive and poetic - when experimenting with a domain of the Real? Granted, many such attempts fail and have failed - maybe because of the metaphysics baggage they carried along. But that is precisely the function of science - to extirpate the mythological aspects of important findings. Certainly ignorance and lack of effort to learn is no gauge of the value of a new perspective, nor of what might succeed or, instead, fail. Yet, this is precisely how Rothwell proceeds:
Gene - "If Jed had put any effort at all into downloading and examining the Correa monographs, he would have known otherwise."
Rothwell - "I do not understand these monographs. Either they make no sense, or the technical content is over my head."
To summarize: despite his candid admission of an incapacity to discern which of these two conditions might be true, he has no compunction whatsoever in venturing, or even stating point blank, that we are frauds. Or insane. Or morally-depraved monsters. And no compunction in setting out to smear the reputations and integrity of those - such as Dr. Mallove or Dr. Aspden - whose studied appraisals differ significantly from his own ignorant one. What kind of a man is this that makes the eulogy of his own incomprehension and lack of effort? A tired man? For Spirit, as I understand it, does not surrender this way. Through the errors and the failures, Spirit tries again and again - accepting the failures but being no less certain of the conquests for doing so.
Entirely different from this is the Rothwellian attitude - shared by his minion Kooistra - of transforming his incomprehensions into the attribution of some paranoiac objective - in this case, most specifically, to 'me'. Well, why not? - aren't all normal individuals neurotic and thus manic-depressives? And aren't all manic-depressives paranoid? Kooistra should know - as he dreams of his Christian Identity and Destiny, possibly as another Remnant Saint or a Calvinist version of it. So what if I, too, am paranoid?
For what is at stake here is not what I am or am not. It will not be on this basis that anyone will begin either thinking or being... What really is at the crux of the matter here is that we now live in an age where those who speak have their time taken up by speaking loudly enough to be heard, and are too busy to read or understand or think about what it is they are so madly speaking. They have no time and are not paid to get informed, to read, to study. If they don't speak, someone else will and they'll soon be forgotten. Actually having something to say is - in their eyes - irrelevant. What's important is to be seen to be saying something, anything. To have an opinion. They are just elected or self-elected spokespersons... And in order to keep their bully-boy hold on both the reins of people and the desire to create, they resort to confusion, smears, malicious lies, totally gratuitous statements that denigrate both the work and the so-called 'personality' of others - in this case, researchers - with the most obvious purpose of maligning the latter's' characters and intentions. Little fascists!
3.2. About Reich's discovery of the thermal and electroscopic anomalies of the ORAC and our replication and further elaboration by hard and strenuous study.
The two papers on Stirling motors driven from modified ORgone Accumulators led Rothwell to a very interesting exhibition of his 'art' as a wannabe scientist - the scientist which he is not, neither de jure nor de facto. I certainly cannot express an opinion about the Perkins-Pope machine which he so much glorified in that free-for-all confrontation in '98 as being more real that anything Tesla, Reich or I could ever come up with. How things change for the poor of mind! Never mind that - true to form, he has not read our papers, where specific controls with a variety of boxes and surfaces are presented. Instead, he 'literaturizes' (3 Jun 2002):
"While investigating the Perkins-Pope machine, I did numerous similar tests with various thermometers and thermistors, in different rooms, some with lights and some without. I found temperature differences much larger than the maximum described here, 0.6 deg C. I expect you would find a similar temperature difference with a Faraday cage, a block of wood, or a pillow, or sometimes with no object at all, for no discernible reason. I do not know whether Reich, Correa or Mallove performed such control experiments, but given the random temperature differences I observed even in the complete absence of objects it would be difficult to define a good control experiment. In a chamber the size of a room it is impossible to achieve controlled temperature observations. The observer himself causes major differences in air flow and temperature. This was observed by the Wright brothers in the 1901 wind tunnel tests. [...] The Wrights discovered that the placement of furniture around the room and the position they stood in while reading the data affected the instrument performance. They finally marked the position of all furniture and the place on the floor where the observer stood to reduce random variation."
What a string of inanities. In his haste to grandiosely spout, Rothwell "forgets", somewhere along the way, that the very crux of the Reich-Einstein experiment is the persistence of the positive temperature difference measured atop the Faraday cage; how, then, can this difference be assimilated to "random temperature differences" in a room? And he also, of course, "forgets" that to measure this persistent, and indeed very small, temperature difference, we made sure that our Reich-Einstein experiment was conducted in a dark room with still air, and that our measurements were made accurately and rapidly enough so that the air movement OR the energy field of the experimenter did not register in our MERCURY THERMOMETERS (NOT THERMISTORS, for crying out loud!). Blithely oblivious to his supposed subject matter, our giddy bully-boy comes back with the Wright brothers (who else?) and the temperature differences they found by rearranging furniture. Oh, Jed, you are truly posterior to your posterior, man!
Does Jed even know what thermal diffusion means? And has he dared to read our paper on the Reich-Einstein experiment and PERFORM - that's right, ladies and gentlemen, for these apologists of an unending SPECTACLE, they, too, MUST HAVE TO PERFORM (or no? er...) - THE EXPERIMENT WHICH WE DID? Or are such people exempt from scouring their consciences, canvassing their memories and putting their hands to work - to replicate what they so freely and ignorantly talk about? Should they not be obliged to know the problems as one knows a lover, to understand what a life of investigation really is like, the passion and the joy and the suffering it entails, all in one?
NO. NO and NO, for time, history, and an eternity. He has no balls to verify what Reich discovered and we have replicated. Not the simple Reich-Einstein experiment, nor the simple HYBORAC/Stirling Motor experiment we invented. You see, here is the proof of the pudding and the measure of the fiber. And since this is so - then, WHAT HIDDEN AGENDA IS HE SERVING?
Jed, oh Jed, get your arse in gear and have the guts, the decency, the desire, the determination, the COURAGE, the GRACE to reproduce the Reich-Einstein experiment CORRECTLY!
Unfortunately, there are always scientists who are only too willing to become a hostage of bully-boys. Here, the case in point is Ed Storms - who, God knows for whatever reason, decided that the temperature differences we measured, Einstein measured, Infeld measured and Reich measured (last but not least in importance), are within "the range of random noise":
"While I agree with Jed that these small temperature differences are in the range of random noise, I must caution that such measurements can not be made using a thermistor. Thermistors generate a small amount of heat which changes their temperature depending on the convection currents with the environment. Only a thermocouple or bulb thermometer are useful for such measurements."
This obliges me to have to pull his ears. For the only range of random noise that such small temperature differences lie WITHIN, is the random noise of thermistors (NOT EVEN THERMOCOUPLES, whose insensitivity immunizes them from such LARGE fluctuations!!). Ed, how could you? Have you ever worked with good old high- resolution MERCURY thermometers? They are a source of great sanity.
But back to our story. Next, Heffner piped in to correct Storms, by arguing that thermocouples are no better than thermistors. Rothwell then capped the entire exchange with -
"I do not think that Ed meant to condemn thermistors for all purposes. As long as the fluid is moving and the temperature difference is much larger than the self-heating effect, a thermistor is fine. When measuring quiescent air temperature in a room, you might place the thermistor in a particularly quiet, dead air spot where it self heats a fraction of a decree [sic]."
Isn't that gorgeous? As long as Ed is not condemning thermistors, go ahead, reproduce the Reich-Einstein experiment with them. The simple, evident emotional resistance to just performing the experiment with the best method still available - the high-resolution mercury thermometer - is very telling: it speaks volumes on the fear, nay, the terror they experience at the possibility of being proven wrong if they conduct the experiment properly!
Akronos Publishing has also received several letters - predominantly from electricians and electrical engineers - who share this mythical belief in the fine resolution of thermistors irrespective of how they are placed in space and in the circuitry. All these people had one thing in common - they could not make heads or tails of their results, because the errors were so monstrously large.
But has Rothwell bothered to reproduce the experiment with mercury thermometers? NO. With thermistors, then? NO. With thermocouples? NO.
Maybe he can use the IR 'eye technique' developed by Beaty? Maybe he already does...
As a matter of fact, in response to Ed Storms' unfortunate message, our bully-boy actually indicts himself - for it turns out that he has never, as we have and as Gene patiently has, employed mercury thermometers, let alone high-sensitivity ones. The thermometers he used, even in the Perkins-Pope tests, were like those that you can buy at your local Canadian Tire or Home Depot store. Unreliable.
"I mainly used an alcohol thermometer, good [sic] 0.2 deg C. It showed plenty of variations up to 2 degrees when I moved it from place to place and checked every 5 or 10 minutes."
I publicly challenge this Rothwell to name which alcohol thermometers he used that resolved 0.2°C. Please, tell us the length of the stem! The most prosaic explanation for his own useless observations is that he has never had any scientific and technical experience in thermal studies. Everything he says about the radiation, convection and loss of heat in indoor spaces had been taken into account in our stringent reproduction of the Reich-Einstein experiment: conducted in darkness, in a room isolated on all four walls from heated spaces, subject to convection (of course, like any room!) but where convection was measurable, minimized and controlled for, and where the control thermometer was suspended freely without any surface below it other than the ground, at the same height as the thermometers in the experimental enclosures. All those critical conditions that mattered even to Infeld, but do not matter to those who opt for denying Reich's findings and for becoming, at a late hour and as a kind of career move, Infeld adherents - like Douglas Marett.
Still on this matter, does Rothwell know how long it takes for a human body standing 1 foot away from a suspended high-resolution mercury thermometer, with the naked bulb at waist-height, to increase by 0.05°C the temperature on that thermometer? Has he done the experiment? It takes 50 to 60 seconds. Whereas any experienced person can take a reading in the dark in 5 seconds - not to mention that our thermometers were suspended at eye-level, not waist-height.
After having unburdened himself of the alcohol-thermometer tidbit, Rothwell opines:
"You produce air currents by walking, opening doors and breathing, and 120 watts of heat from metabolism."
Really? How about providing a peer-reviewed and published reference for those 120 watts, O bully? Chapter, page and verse, please!
And what solution does this onanist propose, he who demands that the Correas, and other inventors, young or old, should be duty-bound to have a finished product and enough money in their pockets to produce kits for all the Warts of Vortex to buy at a suitable socialist price?
"Correa and Mallove addressed some of these issues, as described in the article. Obviously they know that walking causes air currents and metabolism generates heat! But based on what I did, I do not think it is possible to fix these problems in an ordinary room. Perhaps a sealed, unmanned room inside another room equipped with IMRA-style environmental controls would work, or a room in mineshaft [sic], but this would cost a great deal of money."
A "great deal of money"! Coming from this worshiper of Baal, this is in fact an admission - an admission of the very spuriousness of the campaign this bully-boy has led against me, against Alexandra, against our co-workers, and against Gene Mallove. Amidst the distortions regarding the simple (!) thermal anomaly of ORACs, whether minimized or maximized, there is this confession of wretchedness, measured in the only units of value that bullies like Rothwell know: money. Large quantities of it. Wads of money.
Yet, there is something nearly sublime about Rothwell's discreditation of the experiment(s) that Reich and Einstein conducted on the ORAC thermal anomaly: even though Frothwell is not a scientist, and has grasped nothing of the problem, he instinctively agrees with Infeld's objection:
"Air moving horizontally will upwell or drop below a solid object, like wind meeting a hill. I suppose this must cause a persistent variation in temperature above a solid object. It would not surprise me to learn that it is often about a half-degree."
Without having read either Reich's The Einstein Affair or the correspondence between Reich and Einstein, or even our study of the Reich-Einstein experiment which IE published a year ago, Rothwell rediscovers convection. That suffices him plenty, since he has no need to take notice that, as Gene put it, we employed control boxes on stands having the same cross-section as the test boxes, suspended other test boxes from the ceiling, and kept the controls also suspended in the absence of any significant surface reflection of heat or electromagnetic radiation. All this was carried out precisely to test the validity of Infeld's objection which Rothwell tries to articulate. But undeterred by his own spurious objection, Frothwell dons the wig of our peer (he wishes, the brute!):
"I said this experiment as performed is 'unconvincing.' I did not say it is bunk and should be dismissed. There are enough unknowns and unsatisfactory aspects to make it unconvincing. Some sort of null with a block of wood, a pillow or what-have-you would help, but as I said persistent variations occur even in the absence of objects, presumably caused by such things as hot water pipes in the walls. My guess is the only way to make this experiment more convincing would be to either boost the temperature difference to something like 6 deg C (~3 sigma in my house), or put the whole thing in some sort of calorimeter. Unfortunately the calorimeter might interfere with the putative effect, since I presume most calorimeters act as Faraday cages." (3 Jun 2002).
Like so many Reichians - including Douglas Marett, who has now abjured his sacred faith even as he joins hands with the `injured' DeMeo (who thinks the thermal anomaly is an IR phenomenon... whatever else is sensible heat? And likewise ce pauvre Beaty) - this Frothwell fails to realize the very objective of the Reich-Einstein experiment: the strict minimization of the temperature difference, not its maximization. For if, indeed, we could abrogate the temperature difference in a metal box suspended from a ceiling or on a stand in a large unheated room with all its doors closed, and surrounded on all four sides by unheated rooms, where the effects of convection can be controlled for and, virtually, entirely removed from the underside of one of the boxes, then Reich's contention would be wrong and Infeld's objection correct.
Let the reader note how the same rabid animosity that so persecuted Reich and his work and sought to destroy it, is still provoked today by these simple findings that confirm his discovery of anomalous heat atop ORACs, and which Alexandra and I - and independently Dr. Mallove - have confirmed and further investigated and clarified.
Yet, when we maximize the output of modified ORACs by placing them outdoors under the sun, and we obtain temperature differences in excess of 30°C, then Rothwell's gratuitous advice is to place them in a mineshaft! For what he is after is certainly not science, truth, or verification of these two thermal anomalies and their original observations - the minimal residual difference in the Reich-Einstein experiment, and the maximal difference in our HYBORAC/Stirling Motor experiments. No, what Rothwell is after is creating a widespread perception of having neutralized these and other discoveries that our work has brought forth, by systematic, mindless contrariness; by throwing as many red herrings into the water as he can possibly conjure up; by further muddying those waters until there's no hope of seeing or perceiving or understanding anything; by personal denigration of 'my person', of Alexandra and our co-workers; and by giving the appearance (hopelessly sloppy, though it may well be that most of his audience will fail to remark it) that he has actually made serious objections and criticisms to our work. Yes, that's undoubtedly the way of the little man, Mr. Rothwell. Tarnish others in the abject hope of appearing to shine a little.
Having no fear of plain and simple lying, Rothwell claims to have performed the same experiment as we did, Reich did and Einstein did. Yet there is not the slightest evidence that he has done so. He has certainly never produced a set of measurements, good or bad, that one could sink one's gums into. Filled with self-admiration, rapture even - he writes:
"The cold fusion 'skeptics' never perform experiments or refer to them, whereas I always do. The 'skeptics' usually attack theory instead of experiment, whereas I would never attempt to grapple with Correa's theories."
So, grapple not, but show proof. What experiments have you performed, other than experiments in opening your mouth? Where is the data, the control data, the data for the suspended boxes, the stringent reproduction of the same conditions we employed? Let's see you walk the walk you talk so much about.
But you can't, can you, Rothwell? Because you have neither the courage nor the patience of doing it yourself. It is not a question of scientific formation is it? - you don't even have the slightest desire to research, let alone research things properly. All you can do is smear and insinuate - that, yes, as your puerile spouting on June 4 2002, once more illustrates:
"You cannot determine energy flows by measuring temperatures in open air in a room. Frankly that's a screwy, amateur idea. Years ago my daughter's third grade science textbook (M. Cohen et al., 'Discover Science,' (Scott, Foresmann), pp. 158 - 159) suggested they do exactly that; measure the air temperature above 25, 50, 100, 150 watt lightbulbs. The illustration shows a nice neat graph of the temperatures they suppose you will get, with a splendid correlation of power level and ambient air temperature. I tried it, and needless to say, it doesn't work. When Gene heard about the textbook he immediately dismissed the test as invalid, so I'm a little surprised he thinks this method is okay for the Reich experiment."
Ridiculous garbage, totally irrelevant to the experiments at stake. Enter the red herring of light bulbs - simply unbelievable, the muddle Rothwell tries to stir up here, when our report in IE on the Reich-Einstein experiment and our AS2-05 monograph explicitly describe how the measurements were conducted in the dark, and the unheated room kept in the dark. The readings were made with a flashlight. All possible precautions were taken to minimize interference by the observer, including the time taken to make the readings and the distance between body and thermometer. It is abundantly clear that these moronic schoolgirl irrelevances are simply part and parcel of Rothwell's insidious discreditation campaign whose only real content is gratuitous venom. Whatever idiocies Kooistra and Rothwell can avail themselves of, no matter how stupid, no matter how misleading, they'll be sure to use it to belittle the work I've been involved in. Anything will do.
There is certainly no honest manner in which, faced with the precautions integral to our protocols, Rothwell could draw a parallel between our Reich-Einstein measurements and studying air temperatures above light bulbs!
And what more remarkable indication of the extraordinary and absurd lengths Rothwell is quite happy to travel in his role of retarded referee pursuing a hidden (or not so hidden) agenda, than his preposterous suggestion (of June 4, 2002) that in the Reich- Einstein experiment we should have used not metal and wooden box controls, but - pillows (yes, pillows!) -
"But there is no way to know whether the metal box was actually producing energy [sic, as if energy were produced!], without a calorimeter. It [he means, I presume, our article in IE] does not say whether the box positions were switched, or whether other objects such as a pillow[!!] were substituted for the boxes."
On the same June 4th (he must have been in particularly good form that day) Rothwell, even though he has reproduced literally NOTHING of our work, or of Reich's work, has the gall to impunely declare:
"First of all, the experiments were originally conducted by Reich & Einstein, not the Correas. Second, there would [sic] a temporal discontinuity if my tests [what tests???] were conducted in order to debunk or discredit the Correas. I did my tests first [what tests???]. Third, my opinion of them as people has nothing to do with my evaluation of their scientific claims. From all that I have read about Galileo and Newton, I get the impression they were both First Class Jerks, and back-stabbing, whining pathological liars, but I have no doubt their scientific claims are valid."
What is simply astonishing to me - and to others to whom I have shown the odd bit of this Rothwellian bilious bigotry - is how he manages to go about writing such blatant monstrosities and uttering such dishonest judgements without even the slightest embarrassment or shame. If jerks ever belong to a first class, he's it.
3.3. About the HYBORAC/Stirling Motor experiments
Apparently, in the wake of some suggestion from Spaandonk in some ultra-secret group that, from time to time, knowingly (very knowingly!) leaks out onto the "official" Vortex, Rothwell began to spread another red-herring rumour - that RF in the environment, or wittingly tapped by our apparatus, or fraudulently employed by us, was driving the Stirling Motor. Dr. Mallove's Appreciation, originally published as a 4-part letter to Vortex, includes some of the responses Alexandra and I wrote regarding this subject. But, prior to this, Rothwell had already begun his enterprise of wormy insinuations: witness this exchange that led to his message on the 7th of May 2002:
">> Does anyone happen to know what the normal background level [of RF] is,
>> outdoors and in houses.
> There is really no such thing. The level of RF varies with frequency and
> intensity over many decades of levels. You can experience one level and
> move 100 feet away and find the level has changed 1000 fold, especially in
> urban areas.
I suppose this means Correa must test with meters to be sure there is no significant ambient RF. Perhaps he did... I don't see anything about it in a quick review of his papers."
Yes, the famous 'quick review' is indeed what this avid nonreader excels at. We did not just test it - we also built and calibrated our own meters. It's that simple. For that very reason we know quite well that the power of an ORAC to drive a Stirling Engine has absolutely nothing to do with the RF background or with proximity to 60 Hz lines. In fact, if Rothwell and Spaandonk are really so interested in the matter, why don't they demonstrate just how one could power a Stirling Engine from `unwitting proximity' to 60 Hz AC. We'd love to see them try, with coils and large currents included.
But of course the truth is that they are not the least interested, except in muddying the waters. A few weeks after conjuring up the bodiless specter of RF, and after Gene and we showed its spuriousness (without any acknowledgement or counterargument from the Rothwell camp) Rothwell - in response to Gene's suggestion that there were other alternatives to Rothwell's three-pronged assessment of our character (frauds/insane/depraved monsters), for example that we were mistaken, suddenly dismisses, with a casual wave of the hand, the RF hypothesis which so shortly before concerned him so much:
"I thought about enumerating this possibility [that we might be honest but mistaken] but it seems unlikely, given the apparent clear-cut nature of their results. The only source of error that anyone has suggested would be RF, and most people I have spoken with now agree that is unlikely." (May 3, 2002)
Where did this crawl out of? So now our results are suddenly declared clear-cut and error-free, when before, and after, and at the same time, they are decried as incomprehensible, confused and sloppy? And who are these 'most people' who agree that 'it is unlikely' - is this a codeword for Gene and us, and our trashing of his stupid argument? And when is 'now'? Does 'now' mean: after this trashing? Or is `most people', again, a codeword for the dynamic duo - Mizuno and Storms - having now confirmed the correctness of what Gene and we stated?
Four days later, it is time for another round of insinuation, so Rothwell blithely writes about the very same results that he had just pronounced 'clear-cut' and error-free:
"One aspect of the Correa experiment that is particularly unclear to me is the performance of this Stirling engine. I read the paper in I.E. 41 a few times but I still do not understand how much energy the authors claim the box is producing [sic]." (June 3, 2002)
Yes, the spectacular world is an infinite storehouse of red herrings, and all one has to do is fish out the next one. So here we go again. The authors did not make, in either of the two papers on the Stirling, any claim about the amount of energy 'produced' by the ORAC - as Rothwell would know if he had read those papers. But 'the authors' (Alexandra and I) have already made calculations for the power generated by precisely one-cubic-foot boxes, as a function of their varying temperature and the varying latent heat indirectly measured by studying the electroscopic arrest with the new tools 'the authors' have proposed, in monographs AS2-02, AS2-05, AS2-06, AS2-07, none of which Rothwell has read or even acquired. And he continues:
"There is a graph of temperature versus RPM but I see no indication or calibration showing watts per RPM. Maybe I have overlooked it."
No, Rothwell, you did not - and this is the only glorious time you venture something right: for it was neither our objective nor our intent, in those two papers, to discuss the energy, power and work studies regarding those Stirling experiments. But since Rothwell wants to create the impression that we have not bothered to estimate or measure the power of the Stirling, he invokes 'someone's' estimate (perhaps a figure that Rothwell foggily remembered from our statement, in Dr. Mallove's 4-part article to Vortex, that the power output of the Stirling which we observed at top speed was ca 500 milliwatts), only to merrily hop to a sudden revelation which can be read in the American Stirling pamphlets (which, incidentally, contain no calculations for heat energy, temperature or thermal power regarding these motors, which are sold as kits) - that low delta T Stirlings can be driven from the palm of one's hand:
"Someone estimated it would take about 600 milliwatts to keep the motor running, and considerably more than that to start it up. It suddenly occurred to me just now that one report says Ken Rauen started the motor with the heat from the palm of his hand. How much heat is that? "
One might expect that Rothwell would proceed to attempt to answer his own question, to calculate the heat, as thermal energy, from some basic temperature differential, say 37°C as the physiological temperature of the human body minus room temperature for the Stirling top plate. But no. Instead, he provides the reader of his hasty attack with a jackass calculation of thermal power - not thermal energy - having no regard whatsoever for the delta T! Isn't that extraordinary? What precision! What a sharp brain! What novel and refreshing methodology! -
"Very VERY roughly:Total skin area human adult: 2 sq. meters. Skin area palm of my hand: 80 sq. cm (0.008 meters), 1/250 of the total skin area. Average waking metabolism 130 watts"
We note that Rothwell's previous unsupported figure of 120 watts for the waking metabolism has now mysteriously and just as unsupportedly increased to 130. But since Jed only has his degree in Literature, what could we blame him for? For playing a sad role posing as 'scientific' critic and doing someone else's 'sale besogne'. Here is a critic that cannot even make a simple thermal calculation for energy. And all this contortionism to achieve what? - 100 milliwatts, a power figure that lies well within the output power range (20 to 500 milliwatts) we quoted in that communication to Dr. Mallove which he forwarded on to Vortex...:
"The hand has more underlying blood vessels than other parts of the body I believe, but as a rough approximation let us assume all skin radiates the same amount. That would make the palm output about a half watt. Only a fraction of that would go into the Stirling motor. So perhaps the thing runs with only ~100 mW?"
And for all these gratuities, 'roughnesses' and perhapsisms he does not have to present any evidence - as with Marett, figures are something that can always be pulled out of the hat: someone said 600 mW, meanwhile I thought of something else, now I make a VERY rough `estimate', then I take some arbitrary fraction of it - and presto, here's the input power - which it doesn't even occur to me to compare, for plausibility, with the output power estimated by the Correas! What an insufferable buffoon!
Yet, this kind of 'evidence', including Rothwell's anecdoctic evidence we quoted in the previous section on the Reich-Einstein experiment, gets overt support, on Vortex, from hysterics such as Kooistra, who immediately added (3 Jun 2002):
"...it's just that I was delighted that Jed had properly applied lessons learned from an earlier experiment to this one, and had cited relevant supporting references (The Wright Bros.) in support of his point."
Why does this stiff flattery of Kooistra's remind one so much of a primary school marm clucking over a recalcitrant student's return to his lessons? Or Hardy congratulating Laurel for his erudition? No, there's nothing like the constant dredging up of the all- purpose Wright Brothers History According to Rothwell to serve as demonstration of everything from Inventors Disease to 'THE error' in the Reich-Einstein experiment....
On June 4, 2002, Rothwell undertakes a renewed attack on the Stirling Engine experiments with a modified ORAC; responding to Gene Mallove, he writes:
"Do you refer to the Stirling engine experiments described in I.E. #41? I do not find these provocative. I find them confusing and even less convincing for the following reasons:
1. I cannot tell how much energy the Stirling engine is producing.
2. I do not know the heat capacity of the box would be, or how much normal ambient energy it might collect.
3. Mixing solar energy with the putative aether energy is a very bad idea. You should never mix two sources of energy, especially something like noisy solar energy, and if you must include solar energy you should measure it.
4. The experiment is conducted in open air -- even outdoors! -- instead of inside a calorimeter. Trying to do calorimetry outdoors is one of the craziest notions I have heard of in a long time. Why not do it while swinging on a flying trapeze?"
Let me hereby respond to this bully boy's 4-point list of reasons for his 'confusion':
1. To begin with, it's certainly news to me that Stirling Engines "produce energy". I thought they performed work, and that energy is not something that one produces, but that one taps, converts, transforms. The fact that Rothwell does not know how much energy the Stirling Engine 'is producing' is not only irrelevant to the experiments, it is also obviously a rather basic problem of his own.
2. I believe Rothwell when he says he doesn't have the slightest clue about the heat capacity of the box, or what types and quantities of energy it collects: for he has never read Volume 1 of Experimental Aetherometry, where those measurements and calculations are precisely carried out. Nor can he perform them by himself - with all the data we give for sizes of the boxes, temperature, etc. Yet he belligerently holds this against us!
3. Rothwell's malevolent fatuousness reaches a peak with the astounding notion that we should not be exposing these boxes to solar radiation, because we would - in his mind - confuse it with some other source of 'the putative aether energy', which is so putative or would-be in Rothwell's universe that he has not even bothered to notice that it is our very specific claim, as well as the claim of Tesla and Reich, that solar radiation is massfree Aether energy in electrically ambipolar form. Moreover, what we claim is trapped inside these boxes are the byproducts of this radiation - latent heat and sensible heat. But then, since Rothwell uniformly dispenses with informing himself on the subjects he blathers about, it's hardly surprising he finds himself making such idiotic remarks.
4. Rothwell would have us conduct the experiment inside a calorimeter! A big one! Because doing in situ calorimetry of a closed box outdoors is like doing it on a flying trapeze. So, if I want to study the action of the sun upon my closed box, and to determine whether or not the sun generates temperature differentials capable of running a Stirling Engine from the top of an ORAC - where Reich found the highest temperature difference - I should first proceed to bury the box in a mineshaft?! Place it inside a giant calorimeter (to measure what? how much heat there is surrounding the box? inside the box?? If Rothwell wishes to pursue his hallucinatory protocol in order to answer his own experimental questions, he is certainly welcome to it - but this was obviously never part of our study, nor does it have the slightest relevance to it! What matters is how cool the top plate of the Stirling is; for the action is performed against it, not against the surrounding air!!), employ thermistors instead of thermometers - anything but what has actually been done, and what is relevant to the problem under study.
To these "points" of Rothwell, Kooistra, looking for the easy wound, adds:
"Since it is a simple exercise in high school physics to 'calibrate' the Sterling [sic] motor (i.e. find rpms/watt) at least to a correct ballpark figure, I'm surprised that neither the Correas nor Ken or Gene has done this yet."
It is curious how these people, propelled by their idle malice, just sail off into never- never land. We never set out to demonstrate the power output of the Stirling Motor, nor to calculate the thermal energies, latent and sensible, in the HYBORAC experiment. We did not have to, since we had already done that in AS2-05, AS2-06 and AS2-07 for all sorts of ORACs (get informed, O Kooistra!). The interested reader can both learn the methodology and apply it as an exercise in the comprehension of Aetherometry. As to the power output of the Stirling, it just was not part of the game - the objective of those experiments was to prove only what they do prove, that a Stirling Engine can be run from ORACs, and that it runs 7 hours into the night in the absence of direct solar radiation [September 2003 note: since early this year, Alexandra and I succeeded in running Stirling Motors continuously around the clock from a much-improved HYBORACs.]. That is the fact that Rothwell and Kooistra refuse to accept - and which, by the way, DeMeo has totally passed over in silence.
Moreover, the Motors were calibrated just as the American Stirling Motor Co. does it - by the minimum delta-T - and that is all one needs to know, even if we presented all the delta-T and To-T curves needed to follow the dynamic functioning of the Stirling (which Kooistra, despite Gene's correction in Vortex, continues to confuse with the pound Sterling).
In fact, here is the challenge to Kooistra, grandmaster of highschool physics: using our data, and whatever methods he wishes, why doesn't he propose a calculation for the power output of that Stirling at the delta-T and RPM values reported? Were he even half as adept in these 'basic' and 'mundane' matters as he pretends to be, it should have been a snap for him to perform that calculation before his eager-beaver peers on Vortex - without requiring the challenge. Now, no copying from your classmates, Jeffery! (Remember, god doesn't like a cheater...) (yeah, right.)
3.4. About the geomagnetic wheel
We have kept this technology entirely secret. And we will continue to do so, until we might encounter a sponsor for the ABRI. We gave Dr. Mallove permission to talk about it and we do not intend to say much more than what he has already said, on his own. On Vortex, Gene defended us valiantly - in the face of what aspired to be an equally vicious and slanderous campaign against him for having had the temerity to both praise our work and present a brief introduction to the Aetherometry monographs. The virulence and bigotry displayed against him for his efforts was something none of us will soon forget. For he is a dear friend - but also a highly perceptive and intelligent examiner. He was permitted to play with the wheel and to test it in configurations of his choice, on one occasion, for as long as he wanted, with no one else in the room. To Vortex he wrote:
"One [of the recent Correa inventions] is a perpetually spinning wheel that drives against friction with no input power at all. It has been spinning for months."
Rothwell's response (1 May 2002):
"People have made similar claims many times, but there has never been proper independent verification. Until several other people observe the same thing in their own laboratories, I will not believe it. I do not dismiss it completely, the way an s.p.f. 'skeptic' would."
I certainly have no objection if Rothwell wants to dismiss it like a 'professional skeptic' would - but what is so insidious about his underhanded utterance is the manner in which he always denies that he does what he does. Of course, it is his right to disbelieve - though, being a former member of IE, a long-time partner of Gene, and a supposed friend of inventors (right!), he might be expected to show a little restraint. Even a little natural curiosity. Fine, he is a boor without manners. And so he is, as can be seen from what followed:
Gene - "I was there when it spun -- under my direct observation and testing -- for over a day. There is NO mistake."
Rothwell - "But there could easily be a hidden power supply. There has been in every other similar machine which was carefully investigated, as far as I know."
Yes, there could, Mr. Rothwell, if all examiners were fools and all inventors were frauds, or if our purpose was fraud. But the only hidden power supply moving that wheel was - nature.
"The philosopher thus has to say (...) 'judge not!', and the ultimate distinction between philosophical heads and the others is that the former desire to be just, whilst the others to be a judge."
F. Nietzsche, "Human, All-too-human"
"I was working shift on the 6 o'clock,
quiet in the pale dawn.
Found a bird caught in the machinery -
set it free and watched it go...
Quit the job that very day,
and flew into the sky just following after
this aimless desire,
the awful desire,
the aimless desire"
NMA, "Strange Brotherhood"
September 2003 Addendum
"You have no interest in the physics and science behind it and what it does or does not connect with. 'Its over my head.' Everyone has heard that over and over. But somehow you have come to the false conclusion that CF/LENR is the one and only verified new energy source."
Dr. Gene Mallove to Jed Rothwell, on Vortex, Sept. 23, 2003
The persistent and intentional harm caused - to science, to my reputation and that of my co-workers, to any prospects for our technologies - by Marett, Rothwell, Kooistra and the rest of their Warts, is exemplified by an extract from a very recent letter of a business party interested in sponsoring our plasma technologies. Note that a new attack by Rothwell and Storms is now in evidence, this time against our Aether Motor technology. I quote from the businessman's letter:
"When I directed our dialogue toward your work and the apparently groundbreaking discoveries that your work and DVD would suggest, they [Rothwell and Storms] were less than excited. Mr. Rothwell, in particular, exclaimed three points of contention - 1) that you would not allow any other 3rd party scientist to perform a "proper" scientific due diligence on the aether motor and the associated apparatus 2) that by using very "creative" language to describe the effect and technical & mathematical support of your discoveries, no classical or even "new" scientist such as himself could explain or understand the phenomenon 3) that the power was being driven by heat differentials - just as a sterling engine will run on a hot cup of coffee."
To this we answered:
"[Point #1] is yet a new bone of contention coming from Rothwell. It is the first time we hear about this one! The allegation is (like every other utterance of Rothwell regarding our work) false. We have given demonstrations of the Aether Motor on separate occasions to many different people and to at least three prospective investors, all of whom asked for various tests. Gene Mallove, for example, who, unlike Jed Rothwell, is a scientist (an SB and SM from MIT), and, unlike Storms, a scientist who still undertands the value of integrity - not to mention scientific curiousity - has observed several such demonstrations and was permitted to test the components of the system as the demonstrations progressed. What we don't do, nor intend to do with this particular technology, is reveal the circuitry. But that does not preclude testing.
Moreover, since we have not requested financing for the Aether Motor per se from anyone, whether we show how it's done or not is a moot point. The proposal we have tendered for our Institute includes the Aether motor technology, but it is neither limited by it nor focused on it. Please, also note that ABRI (the Aurora Biophysics Research Institute) and Labofex are distinct entities and endeavours. All plasma technologies (PAGD and interrupted vacuum arc discharges, inverter and converter applications) were developed by Labofex, including those we have patented or have kept as commercial secrets.
Your communication is one more clear example of the concerted campaign of disinformation, libel and innuendo which Rothwell has conducted against our work for nearly six years. The fact of the matter is that we have given plenty of open demonstrations of that technology to scientists, engineers and prospective sponsors (including one major utility and IAI). It is this technology which Rothwell has publicly and persistently attacked. Why? Aside from the personal motivations that, as we remarked above, include nothing short of a psychotic hatred of us for having challenged his invidious psychiatrization of scientists and scientific investigation (we are not the only serious researchers he has chosen to smear), the real reason, we suppose, is Rothwell's fear of any technologies that are prospective competitors to his pet notion of 'cold fusion', let alone one that might be succeeding in generating power - when his efforts and those of his cohorts are failing. This, too, has the messianic allure of wanting to be the conductor of the greatest revolution in science... Only this fear and rage regarding anything that appears to threaten his image can explain how Rothwell so freely talks about matters he does not know, has not read, and is unable to understand.
[With regard to point #2, we must ask:] What phenomenon? That is a singular allegation - not a plural? If it relates to the Aether Motor, qua phenomenon, we have only published minor aspects of it, that were relevant to other topics at hand. We have published strictly nothing on the motor per se, nor will we do so, at least for as long as patents are pending.
Further, do note that Rothwell is not, de jure or de facto, a scientist - "new" or otherwise. He not only lacks any formal qualifications - but also understands just about nothing in matters of science and physics, be they even within the domain of his obsessive hobby, 'cold fusion'.
The fact is that this is an 'objection' that seemingly does not even need to have a concrete object. It is a sort of mantric 'objection' of Rothwell and Storms - which, by the way, is frontally addressed in the published Storms correspondence. And it demonstrates the kind of determined ill-will we are dealing with from these two. How is it that so many scientists, engineers, artists, mathematicians, who, unlike Rothwell and Storms have actually bothered to read our texts, have had no difficulty in grasping their content? Akronos Publishing would not be possible if this were not the case. Language is - and must be - created in every field of science, every day that passes. Whether it makes sense or not, whether it is legitimate or not, is up to those who actually read, study, get informed, to determine for themselves. Not up to Rothwell and Storms who, to the best of our knowledge, have never read any of our paid publications. See for yourself, in our email correspondence with Storms, the kind of 'gentleman' you're dealing with. A man who has so little intellectual integrity that he intentionally confuses proton with photon to distort our words, only to excuse himself by faulting his software (for an impossible feat!).
[As to point #3:] we jump into yet another ill-digested non-reading of still another of our lines of research. This is such a ridiculous assertion that it can hardly even qualify as a bone of contention. Obviously, a heat engine - such as the Stirling engine - is ALWAYS driven from thermal differences. The question is, rather, HOW are specific thermal differences sustained around the clock, even under stringent conditions, such as in our reproduction of the Reich-Einstein experiment. That's the question - and this identifies where you need to steepen your learning curve - by getting familiar with the chronology of the events and the sequence and content of our publications. This idiotic "allegation" only proves, once more, that neither Rothwell nor Storms have the slightest idea of what they so brainlessly speak about. The fact is that, in its present stage of development, the STIRLING/HYBORAC technology (developed by the ABRI, not by Labofex) has already far surpassed the present capability of any cold fusion cell these 'gentlemen' may care to offer.
And so, we would have to say to you that perhaps the greatest harm to our work does not spring from its language or from its concepts or novel mathematical functions, but from the malicious and ignorant disinformation campaigns launched against it by a few, like Rothwell and those at the receiving end of his purse. Normal currency, we suppose, for fearful and dishonest competitors."
Aside from this intentional harm done to our scientific and business interests, there is the question of science itself - in which Rothwell often takes refuge, though he is not qualified to do so and has never conducted a single scientific investigation. It is, therefore, hardly astonishing if he misunderstands everything. This misunderstanding begins with his notion that science only exists when discoveries, phenomena or experiments are peer-reviewed; he also adds, at other times, the need for them to be replicated 5 to 10 times before one considers them to be science. And he has stated that, before peer review takes place, discoveries, phenomena, experimental findings are nothing of the sort, are not science. One might forgive him for not being a scientist - but what about his advisors that use him as their mouthpiece? Don't they know what science is?
Then, let me instruct them -
1. Plenty of reports are published every day in peer-reviewed journals, without replication by any other laboratory or laboratories. They are de facto part of official science, like it or not. Some will stand the test of time, others will not, and still others will remain in a state of undecidability - and yet, irrespective of the outcome, they are all part of the scientific process.
This fact abrogates any possible reality for Rothwell's peremptory statement: "Results must be replicated at high sigma, or they do not exist. That rule must not be broken!" Well, the fact is, that 'rule' exists only in the mind of Rothwell! Results are results, and whether they were repeated enough times by the researchers reporting them, with sufficiently good methodology, and are adequate to the question they were designed to answer - that is all that a peer review can and does address. Not whether the results were replicated by others, successfully, at a `high sigma' that then translates into a mere 5 to 10 replications...
Moreover, entire epochs accept, as official science, models for which there has never been objective evidence - only subjective interpretation of evidence that may be even better interpreted by other models, ones that are not recognized and often suppressed. Relativity, in its two forms, is a perfect example of such a subjective acceptance. There is no data for either of the two theories of Relativity. Only a subjective interpretation of data regarding the Bertozzi-type experiments, the orbit of Mercury, the significance of the mCBR, etc.
2. Plenty of peer-reviewed reports are replicated by other laboratories and are, at a later time, shown to be erroneous or, at best, to contain only partial and qualified truths, despite the positive replications. For instance, in the early nineties, the Amgen group published wonderful reports on the effects of Stem Cell Factor in regenerating the blood system; but the results were only possible in vitro because of the addition of nondefined contaminants present in serum-additives to the cultures.
This, in substance, is why S. Fox and A. Szent-Györgyi were fond of pointing out that science is to see and understand what everyone else has already seen and understood, but to do so in a way that makes one think what no one else has thought, see what no one else has seen, and wrench a new understanding or discovery that everyone else must now learn. This is the natural movement of science - through long-term confrontation of viewpoints that oppose each other and yet both have been peer-reviewed, published and verified.
It is ridiculous to present a monolithic view of what science is. Official science itself is not monolithic - it even admits to many of its partial truths.
3. Discoveries do not become discoveries only when other laboratories replicate them, or only when peer-reviewed journals publish them. Discoveries are what they are as long as they are effective discoveries, even if no one else has reproduced them, verified them or peer-reviewed their presentation. As long as they are discoveries, even if secret, they are part of science - though not necessarily of official science. An obvious example is the fact that the Wright Brothers were de facto flying - and thus had de facto made their discovery - long before it was rejected and then accepted by official scientific, military and social circles. Most discoveries that become accepted by official science typically take a generation to get there - plenty of studies have been published in peer-reviewed journals on exactly this subject, and why it is so.
4. The history of official science is filled with discoveries, peer-reviewed or not, which were replicated, and yet became suppressed, discarded and ignored (just as we have replicated and verified much of Reich's work, or Tesla's, and yet neither is widely accepted - nor can they be, given the present conceptual framework held by conventional physics). Still, they too are part of science - the unconscious of official science itself.
5. If discoveries were to be assessed on the basis of the number of replications - as Rothwell pretends they are or must be, and as I. Langmuir once proposed and wished it to be - then, by Langmuir's own numbers, Rothwell's pet field of 'cold fusion' or LENR/CANR would indeed qualify as 'pathological science' (Langmuir's notion which Rothwell's 'Inventor's Disease' parrots). Funny, eh? Maybe it was better to have remained unreplicated...
6. Discoveries cannot be assessed on the basis of the number of replications because, if nothing else, the quality of replication itself matters and should be equally subjected to the review and replication process. This question, alone, begs the meaning of the notion of peer-review: when can one speak of a legitimate or illegitimate peer-review? 'Cold fusion' was peer-reviewed to death by the larger academic communities of physicists and chemists; yet, because there is an ICCF organization whose meetings, the most recent being ICCF-10, are entirely financed by private interests, and which gathers together all those physicists and chemists still pursuing a replication of the PF cell or its variants - because they are convinced the phenomenon exists - does this now make this community of rejected researchers into a peer-review group? Rothwell may drink as much consecrated water as he wishes, he and his scientists still remains unholy! If Storms publishes in a 'peer-reviewed' organization, so do we - our peers being those scientists (Dr. Mallove, Dr. Aspden, Dr. Askanas, Prof. Axelrad, Prof. Tiller, Dr. Bearden) and engineers (U. Soudak, M. Carrell) who have witnessed a variety of our demonstrations, written their impressions, reports and results, reviewed our publications.
The dissolution of the term 'peer-review', not to mention its use and reality, is today an accomplished fact. Which systems of peer-review are chosen by Power to maintain intact the course of an official science and its image, is the only question that is left standing.
7. Plenty of scientific work becomes official, accepted, conventional science, and yet parts of its process remain secret. The smashing majority of medical research falls within this rubric. AIDS cocktails, antiviral vaccines, warfarin analogues for stroke patients, etc - all these domains of biological research, which are engaged in experimentation with humans and are subject to peer-review and peer-publication, are riddled with secret recipes, tentative protocols and extrapolations from animal models. Yet, they are no less a part of science and biotechnology - it is there, in fact, that the forefronts of this research are often to be found - right and wrong. Another example: LTI sells to researchers who publish in official peer-reviewed publications a touted serum-free medium for blood cells, whose recipe is secret. Many papers published by some of the highest-standard peer-reviewed publications use this methodology, and it has become a standard for the USPTO, even though it has been shown to promote growth in the absence of added growth factors - a sure sign that it is contaminated. The secret medium was published in an in-house publication (without the composition, evidently) which, too, is said to be 'peer-reviewed'...
These are all simple points on which books could be written and which preclude the simplistic, Taliban-like assimilations, reductions (ad absurdum) and identifications that Rothwell shouts from his debile pulpit. Those who are not scientists - because they lack either the formation or the auto-formation - have, de facto and de jure, no right to tell scientists what science is, ought to be, or ought not to be.
Science, Mr. Rothwell, is not science by democratic vote, by a compact majority of nonscientists. Science is a method and an art - and requires, for starters, an open mind void of those infantile identifications that you are so fond of!
To cap, then, we have this Vortex exchange from the 23rd of September, 2003:
[Gene] - [...What drew fire from me were Rothwell's] poorly-informed, often venom-filled tirades against the Correas -- and on occasion assaults against Randell Mills, Mitch Swartz, Tom Bearden, Ken Shoulders, and other scientists and technologists within new energy.
[Rothwell] - All those attacks were made on political grounds having nothing to do with technical issues.
[Gene] - On "political grounds"? Are we talking about politics or science here?
[Rothwell] - I stand by all of those attacks.
[Gene] - Really? You stand by your attack on the Correas and all these others?
[Rothwell] - Absolutely! With relish.
Thus, at the close of the case made above against Rothwell and his pack of Warts, we can at last hear his candid admission that it has all been politics on his part. Not science. And which politics - may one ask? The reader can already see - the politics of wanton destruction, the politics of fascists, the malignant politics of being dishonest towards the perceived competition or those one hates. Neither science, nor its politics, then.
[Gene] - Are you saying that Mills is unscientific, that Correas are unscientific, that Mitch Swartz (of the past) was unscientific?
[Rothwell] - They do not publish. They have not been replicated. That makes them unscientific. How else do you know when someone is "scientific"?
Extensive publication of the PAGD has been carried out in our patents, in papers, essays and commentaries by us and other scientists since 1994. Raytheon and at least one other inventor have since obtained patents that quote ours and present analogous data. Since 2001, in the space of two years, Akronos Publishing has published well over 30 long, complex and extensive papers on our work in Aetherometry, plasma physics and the philosophy of science. We have not published???
What lies, Mr. Rothwell, what shameful lies!