|Home||About||Helping Us||Your Order||Contact||Mailing List|
The Second Berlin Conference on Innovative Energy Technologies took place on June 13-15th, 2002, at the Berlin Messe. It was hosted by the energetic group of young and bright researchers at Binnotec e.V., led by Marco Bischof.
Stimulated by our recent exchanges with Harold Aspden and the requests we have received from friends of Aetherometry, we decided to write our impressions of the Berlin Conference. Binnotec must be commended for the wide scope of research it chose to present at the event. Our present focus is considerably narrower, as it relates solely to the plasma technologies presented at the Conference.
1. In this respect, we were sorry to have been forced to miss the talks of Peter and Neil Graneau, on the afternoon of the first day. Their research in electrodynamic anomalous cathode reaction forces in water and air has had many points of contact with our own work on the PAGD, and subsequently on Aetherometry. We have followed the work of Peter Graneau over the years - and concur with much of Peter's views on the solar origin of the chemical energy that is anomalously stored in water and air molecules. But whereas Peter's analysis relies upon the conventional transformations of a supposed solar electromagnetic radiation into sensible heat and the thermal drift energy of molecular substrates, and sees the source of the anomalous energy in arcs as a property of covalent bonds, our aetherometric research has laid the basic scientific proofs for the existence of massfree electric radiation of solar origin and proposed an entirely new set of dependences of the electromagnetic frame upon this electric form of aether radiation. Moreover, the existence of fundamental adiabatic processes - responsible for enthalpic balance in basic chemical reactions and for energy transfer in noncovalent interactions - that remain poorly understood, has led our theoretical effort to propose a new functional and conceptual approach to the relation between sensible heat (in all of its manifestations - radiative, convective and conductive) and latent heat. Neither of the Graneaus accepts, in this context, that both of these processes are driven by massfree aether energy - electric and nonelectric - whose understanding requires new mathematical, physical, analytical and experimental tools. As Neil told us, his vision is not compatible with the notion of an Aether, stationary or dynamic; his approach is one tied to classical positivism, and in particular to the atomistic view of the particle world that remains dominant.
We had the pleasure of spending nearly a full day with the Graneau family, and an occasion to have a long talk with Neil. Neil told us that in the same year or so that we came out with our patents on the PAGD reactor, converter and inverter, he was writing up his PhD thesis on exactly the cyclic arc-breakdown of abnormal glow discharges, and the development of negative resistance in the vacuum gap. We told him about our recent finding of a dependence of the radiative energy contribution from the 'vacuum- state' upon Paschen's Law, how this rules out any neo-classical notion of a ZPE, and how our (then upcoming) report LS1-25 proposes a novel microfunctionalist model to explain these new observations regarding specific plasma discharges. Neil concurred with our appreciation of how Peter's previous alpha-torque force model cannot account for a variety of electrodynamic anomalies that we and others have observed. We discussed Aspden's Law of Electrodynamics - which predicts both the results we found for the PAGD and those which Peter and collaborators have reported for water-arc explosions. And we also talked briefly about our observations with paired electroscopes.
2. Hal Fox opened the session on the second day with a talk on new energy devices (NEDs) that are being commercialized, and focused upon the high-density charge cluster (HDCC) plasma technology of Ken Shoulders. He stated that after 13 years of searching high and low for NEDs he had come up with four technologies: HDCC technologies (where he placed Shoulders, our PAGD work, Stan Gleeson's and Ilyanok's), R. Mills' hydrino reactor, Koldamasov's device and Bearden's MEG. With the exception of the latter, these are all plasma technologies that have been around for nearly a decade. And with the exception of Mills, none of these technologies have been effectively commercialized, their inventors all the while continuing to develop them.
But Hal is mistaken in amalgamating our PAGD work to HDCC technologies. HDCC relies upon thermionic field emission from cathodic points, whereas the autogenous PAGD depends upon cold-cathode autoelectronic emission. Shoulders observed toroidal stacks of electrons, whereas our multiple observations of the plasma channel unmistakably demonstrate the presence of a vortical plasma that evolves from a spinning cathode plasma ball. Together with Harold Aspden, we have drawn attention to Aspden's theory of an Aether Spin which constrains the discharge behaviour to vortex formation. Furthermore, our recent observations presented in report LS1-25 indicate that the 'vacuum-interaction' of the aPAGD regime elicits local production of ambipolar radiation responsible for the anomalous acceleration of the electron plasma and the anomalous energy transfer to heavy ion plasmas. Ken Shoulders and one of us have corresponded about this - and we have told him that we have found no evidence in our work for the HDCC signatures he and his collaborators have reported - be it in our videographic, metallographic or electrodynamic studies. We are also not aware of any demonstration which Ken has carried out which proves that the output power of HDCC's exceeds its input, save the oscillographic report in the US patent # 5,018,180 that compared pulse input with output. We don't believe Ken has demonstrated an integral gain of charge, be it with a data-acquisition system, or a battery protocol - as we have. Fox discusses another possible application of the HDCC technology to the on-site remediation of radioactive waste - but this is, at best and though a good application, a subsidiary role for any plasma-based, potential energy technology that has not yet been demonstrated.
Hal failed to mention the cold-fog or water-arc work of the Graneaus, which is in fact much closer to our own PAGD work than Shoulder's HDCCs proper. But maybe that is explained by Hal's focus on commercializable technologies - since returns of 20 to 30%, such as reported by the Graneaus and Hathaway, can hardly lead to commercial devices. Nevertheless, we are not aware that any HDCC technology can deliver even those 20 or 30% of excess power. We spent the last day of the conference with both the Graneaus and the Foxes, a most pleasant time charmingly hosted by Binnotec's President Andreas Manthey and vice-President Marco Bischof. Hal and we had a chance to agree on much, from politics to history and science. But we did not bother to revisit the differences between HDCC and PAGD technologies which our presentation briefly focused on.
3. For us, the highlight of the Conference was the lecture given by Harold Aspden. We had read it before, and followed his thread regarding the physico-geometric properties of parallel-plate and cylindrical polarizations of the "vacuum-state". In the 1871 US patent #119825 by Daniel McFarland Cork, Aspden finds the first self-inductive demonstration of his principle on how to make energy oscillations escalate in strength so that the ohmic losses become negligeable. He mentioned the possibility that Moray's device might well have set up a resonant inductor-capacitor circuit that can deliver aether energy with the help of an antenna, and that if the Methernitha generator is real it will likely operate on the basis of an escalating resonance between the concentric capacitors and the revolving rotor of the Wimshurst machine that feeds it. On the path forward, Harold placed both our PAGD technology and Geoffrey Spence's - who has also been able to close the loop, at least for a portion of the output power. Harold has further drawn attention to our technology and that of Spence in one of his latest Lectures (#31).
Harold proposes a specific form of a capacitor system operating at 25kV and 100kHz, which will sustain the production of self-escalating oscillations resonant with the local aether spin (see his capacitor energy escalation analysis). This is of particular interest to us, both in the context of our PAGD research and of that other technology we have recently rediscovered and improved upon - the Aether/OR Motor and Converter. As Harold has remarked in his "Opinion on the Correa invention", as well as in his Science Energy Report #8 about our PAGD technology, and as we explored in our LS1-25 report, there are self-resonant conditions in specific discharges that tap the local aether energy by setting up a coherent Aether Spin. The elastic scattering which accelerates electron plasmas in the early stage of the auto- electronic discharge has the characteristics of a capacito-inductive escalation - as our LS1-25 report emphasizes. Interestingly, the Aether/OR Motor technology that we presented at the same Berlin Conference also employs a parallel form of capacito- inductive escalation. And we have recently published - as reports AS2-13 to AS2-17A - our complete aetherometric analysis of the wave and energy processes participating in the establishment of these resonant oscillations which, in our theory, involve both massfree and massbound charge.
Harold terminated his lecture by stating what we also view as the most poignant reality of research in alternative power-generation technologies:
There will be, no doubt, those who take note of my message but say: "Well we have heard it all before; so, when will we see 'aether energy' heating our houses and powering our automobiles?" My answer is that it will be only when the scientific explanation of that potential source of energy is well understood and endorsed by our energy research community.That is why Harold has given freely of his superb work for nearly fifty years, in his struggle to have the scientific community recognize the reality of aether energy and the existence of a new physics that must be considered and explored. Our own aetherometric effort shares this same context; and if we are to add anything - aside from our own dislike for automobiles - it is that such an explanation will never arise if society and the scientific community stand by and fail to provide researchers that seriously pursue different theories and technologies with the means they need to test them. Harold has been somewhat more fortunate than most of us in finding a modicum of sponsorship - but it is obvious that the onus for creating the adequate theory and the optimal technology cannot simply lie with the scientist and the inventor; that such theories and technologies will never arise from the dearth of serious sponsorship or from the greed and rackets of small-time operators posing as investors. If those inventors and scientists who are serious researchers will find no effective and real support from the large public and dedicated individuals and groups, there will be no pressure or incentive for the scientific community to take them seriously and thus be made to open new roadways for creative research in basic physics and biology.
One of the greatest minds and scientists of our epoch, Harold is a delight to listen to - and the most excellent and spirited companion one can imagine. Our time with him in Berlin was simply unforgettable, and we can only wish that the entirety of his work should find a solid financial and organizational backing - exclusively dedicated to testing his theoretical and experimental discoveries documented in one of the most astonishing and extensive works on fundamental physics. If scientists took care to think and freely exercize this power in a consistent fashion, consideration of Aspden's work by the scientific community would have long been made a priority, especially in light of the failures and limitations of both Relativity and existing Quantum theories, including QED.
Likewise, the large public and interested individuals and groups should listen carefully to Harold's words - they are a caution to an epoch that is sinking slowly into a greater chaos, confusion and inaction:
The task is a daunting one, partly because it is a field which attracts interest only from those who do not earn their living as experts on power technology. To put it bluntly, given that anyone who might even pay attention to, or give voice to, the idea that one can get a sustainable source of energy from the aether or our ambient surroundings, is deemed a crackpot lacking education on the basic principles of physics and so would be seen as an outcast by his peers, there is no hope. No one in authority will listen to such ideas and be willing to fund research in this field. Given also that investors who are themselves scientifically unqualified need proof of viability, as endorsed by experts who in turn need to sustain their reputation and credibility, one cannot look in that direction for funding nor is it proper for this important but ill-defined research field to be left at the mercy of ad hoc ventures of this kind.4. We began our presentation by introducing the audience to the fundamental distinctions which our Experimental Aetherometric research has put into evidence: the distinction, within the electromagnetic spectrum, between blackbody and ionizing radiation, and within the former, between HFOT and LFOT photons, according to their distinct physical effects (see Fig. 1).
Next, we introduced our rediscovery of ambipolar radiation - originally investigated by Tesla and Reich - including our discovery of a new radiative spectrum (see Fig.s 2A and 2B) responsible for the blackbody spectrum (the example provided is that of solar radiation; the reader is encouraged to read our AS2-17A report). Until scientists will consider this finding, and the physico-mathematical wave function we have proposed to understand the derivation of blackbody photons from the kinetic energy of charge carriers, there will be no understanding of what longitudinal electric radiation actually is, or how energy transfer occurs. No effective and controlled utilization of aether electric energy will be possible without this understanding.
After the short introduction, our presentation was marred by the poor quality of the untested DVD projection system, with the video being washed out and having the wrong color balance (we went prepared with PAL VHS cassettes that were in fact excellent copies, but the VHS PAL system at the conference was even worse than the DVD; however, the DVD copy we ended up showing, and which was a back-up, had not been either tested or, in fact, properly balanced by the producer we hired). The sound had been adjusted for a stereo output, and thanks must go to Binnotec's technical help for having performed a live mix of the video presentation to salvage the situation.
Our video presentation consisted of two parts - the first focused on the study of the anomalous cathode reaction forces at Labofex: this covered the fundamental principles of normal and abnormal glow discharges, our identification of the aPAGD regime, and the development of inverter, transmitter and converter applications, all detailed in our US and international patents. We highlighted the importance of Aspden's Law of Electrodynamics in understanding anomalous energy transfer by heavy ion interactions with electron plasmas, and provided evidence for four different methods that demonstrate excess power generation: integrated power measurements employing long- term resistive discharges with input and output batteries; simultaneous input and output analysis with a DAS; the ping-pong method that manually closes the battery loop; and inverter applications with spinner-driven flywheels. New reactor development and recent determinations of the 'vacuum-state' contribution to the discharge energy (the subject of our accompanying report LS1-25) were also introduced.
In the second part of our presentation, we covered our work at the Aurora Biophysics Research Institute (ABRI). In general this addressed two other distinct power technologies that constitute developments of W. Reich's work on ORgone physics. The first technology is the Correa Aether/OR Motor based upon our rediscovery and original replication, plus subsequent novel improvements, of Reich's OR Motor. We compared the shared features and contrasted the differences between Reich's OR Motor and our own Aether Motor technology. And then we presented footage from a series of demonstrations to invited parties (colleagues, interested parties and potential sponsors) that illustrate how the Correa Aether Motor can be driven from the aether energy in ORgone Accumulators (ORACs) built as per Reich's indications, from antennas, the ground, the bodies of the experimenter and witnesses, or the vacuum of Vacor tubes. Here is evidence for the self-escalating power of resonant capacito-inductive systems in capturing local aether energy, in the very manner addressed in Aspden's Berlin Lecture !
The last power-generating technology which we presented at the Berlin Conference (the second technology developed at ABRI) was the driving of a Stirling engine directly from a modified ORAC capable of developing temperature differences greater than 30°C during daytime, and greater than 3.5°C during nighttime.
Because of the poor quality of the video projection, we had expected to see people leave the auditorium - but much to our surprise it remained full and even filled a little more. As we did then, we extend our apologies to all those who were present and had to fight through the projection problems we have just mentioned in order to understand the pointed discoveries we have made in three distinct technologies that tap aether energy by very different means.
5. The last presentation on the subject of plasma power technologies was the lecture by Jeane Manning, a General Overview on Developments of Innovative Energy technologies in North America. We had the pleasure of meeting Jeane the previous evening at one of the animated dinners organized by Binnotec, in the course of a good- spirited battle with Tom Valone. A great congeniality between us was inevitable - as we discovered how many viewpoints we share on the matters of research and commercialization of pioneer technologies.
Jeane's talk was a comprehensive and systematic one, garnished with carefully selected and extensive slide documentation. It covered the Cold Fusion technologies - a string of major successes that have been followed by setbacks, one after another, until the field has been almost deprived of financing without having been able to deliver on its promises of cheap, unending power. But Jeane's breadth was not limited to the CF field, and she provided us with a surprise by giving a most gratifying exposition of Aspden's theory of anomalous reaction forces and our experimental work in isolating and exploring the aPAGD regime. Quoting, on one of her slides, from Eugene Mallove's first letter to us following the first set of demonstrations we invited him to attend, Jeane immediately grasped the scientific, social and political implications of our work on pulsed plasmas sustained by auto-electronic emission (we have encouraged Jeane to publish her Berlin Lecture, and would be delighted to post any of her texts and slides that addressed our work or that of Aspden). Jeane made what is perhaps, to this day, the most objective and independent effort to assess the field of alternative energy technologies. Her evaluation of our work is particularly adequate because of her own independent interest in Reich's work. And we must concur with her conclusions regarding the negative impact of a general disinterest by the large public, serious investors and government agencies on what is a hard path ahead for most alternative energy research.
We would also like to express our appreciation for the dynamic group of young researchers which Andreas Manthey and Marco Bischof have gathered at Binnotec. Without their interest and desire, this Second Berlin Conference would not have happened. Both of us have often wondered about how we could help Binnotec, their joint effort, with any of our initiatives. We know well what they are up against - a wall of incomprehension and speculation that bars effective progress of scientific inquiry. And we appreciate their efforts, and those of Manthey in particular, to organize and run this event in the best, most spirited and companionable atmosphere. We had most pleasant conversations with all of them, and loved Berlin all the more for their charm. We wish to publicly express our heartfelt thanks to all of them, and in particular to Andreas, Marco, Thorsten Ludwig and Kai Schaeffer, for their warmth, candor and genuine interest. Thank you!
POSTSCRIPT - The sourest note of this Conference came afterwards. As could be expected, it came from Jed Rothwell's quarters, in the form of a review of the conference written by one Cyril Smith (CS) and posted by Rothwell to the Vortex email list. In spite of systematically calling the Graneaus, Granau, and pooh-pooing anything he did not understand and especially whatever concerned Aether physics, CS had trouble not sounding as if we were the personal target of his little representation, with which Rothwell chose to cap the campaign of lies, innuendo and slander that he, with the help of people like Kooistra and Marett, had been conducting on Vortex.
CS admits he has biases - but they blind him so completely that he fails to realize how the facilities provided by Binnotec for the video and slide projections were rather faulty. That is why Tewari's video was also dark ("The presentation was a poor quality video of Tewari with his big machine"), and ours dark and with funny colors, and Jeane Manning's slides barely visible.
When describing Hal Fox's talk, CS makes sure to omit Fox's mentions of our work. But maybe he failed to realize the connection to us, since the written reference that Hal provided had Paulo as "Palo" and Alexandra as "Alexander". Hal did not mean this, and that is why he pointed in our direction during his lecture - but he is known for some of these slips, as when, in a note that NEN has not ceased to circulate since that time, he described Paulo as "Alexandra" in a report on Paulo's 1996 talk at the International Symposium on New Energy. Maybe now that we have met, Hall will correct this, or ask Patrick Bailey to do so.
Of course, the reason for CS's omission may be something altogether different, seeing that he also makes sure to omit mention of our work when describing Aspden's or Jeane Manning's talk.
Since CS does not understand Aspden's model of Aether Spin, he failed to grasp the fundamental thread of Aspden's Lecture. But no misunderstanding compares to the stunningly ignorant comments he addressed to our work. It is worth examining it as one more example of the disinformation that Rothwell and Vortex pass around. These people blame inventors for not bringing the solution to the energy problem on a platter to a hungry world, but they are the ultimate experts at distorting and discouraging any serious consideration of dedicated researchers. They are the most abominable of spectators, who contribute nothing save their armchair miscomprehensions. We quote CS's perverse paragraph on our presentation and address those items which are worthy of remark:
2.13 Paulo and Alexandra CorreaCS's deceptions concerning our presentation give a measure, in our eyes, of the accuracy of his entire report on the Berlin Conference. The video was a collection of short explanatory sequences, diagrams, and relevant excerpts from the video logs of our work and demonstrations that spanned nearly 15 years. It was never passed off as a professional film production - whatever that might mean. The "in memoriam's" were dedicated to W. Reich, who needs no introduction, and to Dr. R. Silva, one of the most dedicated friends we have ever encountered and one of the strongest supporters of our research efforts, who is sorely missed. We demonstrated not our equipment, but a variety of phenomena that we have discovered and studied; and the equipment involved is no more "Paulo's" than "Alexandra's". There is no such spinner as a K2232, and the video is filled with just enough details to explain to any lay person what are the different and common features of the three technologies we presented: the PAGD/XS NRG converter system; the Aether/OR Motor system; and the ORAC-driven Stirling- engine technology. Had CS been anything other than bent on destroying the reputation of serious investigators and scientists, he would have considered it his obligation to make a modicum of effort at understanding our presentation before taking it upon himself to pass public judgement on it. And he would have rejoiced in the fact that new lines of approach to old problems have brought new solutions and understandings to what previously appeared to be impassable problems in deriving excess power from cold plasmas or from massfree aether energy.
The major part of this presentation was a video of Paulo Correa "demonstrating" his equipment.. I found this quite obnoxious. It was a home-made video made to look like a professional film production (with the credits naming themselves), unnecessary music, an "in memorium" [sic] section to past researchers (with music), and the main part of the presentation was simply rubbish (like a written sign saying "PAGD connected to K2232 spinner" then a view of the lab equipment showing the little motor spinning. This went on ad nauseam, no technical details at all).
Not content with his 'tour de force', CS continues:
The video was preceded by a talk where Correa showed the EM spectrum with the classical solar energy curve and another one of similar shape at smaller wavelengths labelled "orgone radiation". I do not know what orgone radiation is or what evidence there is for its existence.It is evident that CS does not know or care to know. He certainly has never read any of our publications or monographs, let alone understood what ambipolar radiation is, or how ORgone is a subspectrum of it. Yet, he finds no impropriety in flaunting his own ignorance as if it was a reason to demean our presentation. He follows in the sorry tradition of Rothwell - he thinks with his feet: first one speaks, then one hopes to have a thought. But above all, it's important to trash the subject. It never ceases to amaze us how people like this smear whatever they choose, by simple virtue of their mental (de)formation and lack of capacity to study and understand. And how they have little compuction in doing so by coming out of the woodwork at the most opportune moments.
Lastly, CS writes:
An "orgone accumulator" played a part in his video but there was no explanation as to what this consists of. I got the impression that a scientific investigation into the very real but abnormal effects in glow discharges has gone astray, wandering into the paranormal. I am a scientist who wants to believe in these new technologies, and in my view the Correa presentation was a public relations disaster.CS slept through enough of our presentation to fantasize that what it was all about were not the anomalous cathode reaction forces and anomalous energy transfer in abnormal glow discharges (named so for well over a century), but the "abnormal effects in glow discharges" having gone astray... But he needed that pathological epithet in order to arrive at a "review" worthy of Rothwell's sponsorship - and thus we got CS's medal for the paranormal... At the very moment that the discoveries of Tesla and Reich have become duplicated and improved upon by our self-financed efforts into distinct power technologies, at the very moment that Aspden's model of electrodynamic interactions has received stark confirmation from our own work in cold-cathode plasmas, this CS chooses to perform a capping dressdown of the Correas for the benefit of the Vortexians. This alone proves our contention that the greatest enemy of our work - and, by generalization, of the research field in alternative energy sources - lies well within the field itself, and in particular, crystallizes in those who pose as being unbiased and objective in their freely disseminated assessments, and yet prove, time and time again, their ignorance and incapacity to learn and understand what it is they are talking about. Yes, let us not talk about their research efforts or their qualifications to judge the efforts of others, for the score is nihil on both counts. In fact, the simple truth is that they despise science. Their sole concern is for immediate solutions given on a platter (or with a single click of the mouse) with a minimum of effort and bother. This is what they mean when they talk of "public relations". They are the weak link amongst us. And they are also the same people who will build up unbelievable expectations and veritable circuses for the salvation of humanity about what they can never and will never deliver, with the most mystical and spiritualizing idiocies being the only asset they can muster to justify and promote the greed, the feeding frenzy, they hope to create. We shall never give them any quarter.