Every few decades a researcher/inventor, often a bona fide scientist, discovers a new energy source that he or she presents to the world with triumphant aplomb, only to be attacked and dishonourably dismissed by the scientific community; it is the scientific equivalent of excommunication:
Franz Anton Mesmer (1734 – 1815) German physician and astronomer was one such excommunicate, and contrary to popular belief he had little or nothing to do with hypnotism. And who according to Wiki, “theorised that there was a natural energetic transference that occurred between all animated and inanimate objects that he called animal magnetism, sometimes later referred to as mesmerism… …At the request of ‘Faculty of Medicine commissioners’ (the local doctors who were losing business to Mesmer’s superior treatment) the King appointed five additional commissioners from the Royal Academy of Sciences. These included the chemist Antoine Lavoisier, the physician Joseph-Ignace Guillotin, the astronomer Jean Sylvain Bailly, and the American ambassador Benjamin Franklin, no less. The commission conducted a series of experiments aimed, not at determining whether Mesmer’s treatment worked, (and it did, very well) but whether he had discovered a new physical fluid. The commission concluded that there was no evidence for such a fluid. Whatever benefit the treatment produced was attributed to “imagination.””
Nothing changes; the word imagination is used as a scientific sleight-of-hand still in vogue today and if doctors could use it to cure a patient they certainly would do so.
Karl von Reichenbach (1788 – 1869) says Wiki: “was a notable chemist, geologist, metallurgist, naturalist, industrialist and philosopher, and a member of the prestigious Prussian Academy of Sciences. He is best known for his discoveries of several chemical products of economic importance, extracted from tar, such as eupione, waxy paraffin, pittacal (the first synthetic dye) and phenol (an antiseptic).
He also dedicated himself in his last years to research an unproved field of energy combining electricity, magnetism and heat, emanating from all living things, which he called the Odic force… … The Odic force (also called Od, Odyle, Önd, Odes, Odylic, Odyllic, or Odems) is the name given in the mid-19th century to a hypothetical vital energy or life force… …Von Reichenbach coined the name from that of the Norse god Odin in 1845… …The Odic force was conjectured to explain the phenomenon of hypnotism. In Britain, impetus was given to this view of the subject following the translation of Reichenbach’s Researches by a professor of chemistry at the University of Edinburgh. These later researches tried to show many of the Odic phenomena to be of the same nature as those described previously by Franz Mesmer and even long before Mesmer by Swedenborg.”
The Odic also has many similarities with the Orgone of Wilhelm Reich, whom we will meet later in our timeline.
John Worrell Keely: Wiki: “(1837 – 1898) was a US inventor from Philadelphia who claimed to have discovered a new motive power which was originally described as “vaporic” or “etheric” force, and later as an unnamed force based on “vibratory sympathy”, by which he produced “inter-atomic ether” from water and air.”
The Keely Motor Company had been set-up to commercialise the various motor inventions of Keely, but Keely claimed he wanted perfection right up-until the day he died. As a result no commercial Keely motor materialised although there can be no doubt that he had demonstrated several working prototypes. After his death the doubters and sceptics moved-in and ransacked his workshop, finding only a buried pressure vessel in the cellar. This, of course, to the sceptical mind was the answer. Keely was a charlatan who had secretly driven his motors with compressed air. The problem with this argument was that no one had ever seem a compressor – a very large and noisy piece of equipment even today, needed to fill the pressure vessel. Everyone who worked for Keely knew about the pressure vessel and said he had buried it in the cellar because it would not go out through the door.
The debunkers case can be pulled apart, but they are still trying to concoct stories to this day. However, Keely’s motor gives the first clue to the energy that drove the aspirations of those above and others not mentioned. It was Aether, the force of the ancient philosophers, rediscovered by a Philadelphia inventor and musician:
Aether: Wiki: “According to ancient and medieval science, aether, also spelled æther or ether, also called quintessence, is the material that fills the region of the universe above the terrestrial sphere. The concept of aether was used in several (scientific physics) theories to explain several natural phenomena, such as the traveling of light and gravity. In the late 19th century, physicists postulated that aether permeated all throughout space, providing a medium through which light could travel in a vacuum, but evidence for the presence of such a medium was not found in the Michelson–Morley experiment. We will return to the Michelson–Morley experiment.
The Luminiferous Aether: From Wiki: “In the late 19th century, luminiferous aether, æther or ether, meaning light-bearing aether, was the postulated medium for the propagation of light. It was invoked to explain the ability of the apparently wave-based light to propagate through empty space, something that waves should not be able to do.”
Nikola Tesla (1856 – 1943) known to all: Wiki tells us he: “was a Serbian American inventor, electrical engineer, mechanical engineer, physicist, and futurist best known for his contributions to the design of the modern alternating current (AC) electricity supply system.”
He is even more well known through his Wardenclyffe Tower facility and his claim to use aether to supply free electricity to the world.
In a seminal talk before the American Institute of Electrical Engineers (AIEE) in May 1891 at Columbia College in New York City, Tesla spoke these telling words: “Of all the forms of nature’s immeasurable, all-pervading energy, which ever and ever change and move, like a soul animates an innate universe, electricity and magnetism are perhaps the most fascinating. . .We know that electricity acts like an incompressible fluid; that there must be a constant quantity of it in nature; that it can neither be produced or destroyed. . .and that electricity and ether phenomena are identical.” – Nikola Tesla
Tesla’s Wardenclyffe funding was withdrawn, primarily because it’s impossible to meter free energy. Eventually the tower was demolished for scrap. He died in near poverty after giving the world some 700 patents, most of which are still in use in homes, cars, factories and in science. Science has never attempted to duplicate his later scalar wave high frequency experiments because scientists either don’t understand or don’t want to understand the principal. It is left to a hand-full of researchers like Eric Dollard or Konstantin Meyl who are able to duplicate Telsa’s transmitter and have done so in spite of the nay-sayers.
“When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.”
Arthur C. Clarke
All of Tesla’s ideas worked and are still working but to pick-out one that happens to be untested and say it cannot work is the undertaking of a naive fool.
Wilhelm Reich Wiki informs us: “On December 30, 1940, Wilhelm Reich wrote to Albert Einstein saying he had a scientific discovery he wanted to discuss, and on January 13, 1941, went to visit Einstein in Princeton. They talked for five hours, and Einstein agreed to test an orgone accumulator, which Reich had constructed out of a Faraday cage made of galvanised steel and insulated by wood and paper on the outside. Einstein agreed that if, as Reich suggested, an object’s temperature could be raised without an apparent heating source, it would be a “bombshell” in physics…Einstein performed the experiment in his basement, which involved taking the temperature atop, inside, and near the device. He also stripped the device down to its Faraday cage to compare temperatures. In his attempt to replicate Reich’s findings, Einstein observed a rise in temperature, which Reich argued was caused by the orgone energy that had accumulated inside the Faraday cage. However, one of Einstein’s assistants pointed out that the temperature was lower on the floor than on the ceiling. Following that remark, Einstein modified the experiment and, as a result, concluded that the effect was simply due to the temperature gradient inside the room. He wrote back to Reich, describing his experiments and expressing the hope that Reich would develop a more skeptical approach… He also stripped the device down to its Faraday cage to compare temperatures.”
Einstein appears to have been an unimaginative debunker?
No one would expect the accumulator to work with only the inner Faraday cage remaining, not to mention that it was not part of the accumulator but part of the test equipment. Is this a mistake by the Wiki editor or is this the way Einstein did the experiment? I don’t suppose we will ever know?
Everyone knows that warm air rises in a room, the room eventually becoming evenly heated. Given time everything in the room will become the same temperature including the box supplied by Reich. It would then be a simple matter to measure the temperature difference between the box and the room temperature. One would think that a scientist of Einstein’s stature would know this? Apparently not!
“Reich and Einstein unsurprisingly disagreed on the interpretation of the experiment. The entire correspondence between Reich and Einstein was published by the Orgone Institute Press in a book called The Einstein Affair. Official biographers of Einstein have seen fit to omit or insufficiently describe the only experiment that Einstein conducted with Reich, which is properly described in alternative scientific literature as “the Reich-Einstein experiment”. In 2001, Paulo Correa and Alexandra Correa reproduced the experiment and introduced controls that rule out the possibility of convection as an explanation. A similar reproduction was independently carried out by Eugene Mallove.” http://www.encyclopedianomadica.org/English/reich_einstein_experiment.php
The James DeMeo V Paulo and Alexandra Correa controversy can be read here: http://www.orgonelab.org/correas.htm
aetherometry.com: “For nearly sixty years, the Reich-Einstein experiment has remained forbidden territory: not one stringent repetition was ever performed. This alone could stand as a tribute to the slowness of change which a socially promoted armor imposes upon human understanding and grasp of natural processes.” http://www.aetherometry.com/DISPLAY/JAethRes/JAR02-06-01
Einstein used the very same debunking stratagem with regard to the Michelson-Morley experiment that was later continued by Dayton Miller’s further ether-drift experiments: Wiki: “Robert S. Shankland concluded that Dayton Miller’s observed aether signal was partly due to statistical fluctuations and partly due to local temperature conditions and, also suggested that the results of Miller were due to a systematic error rather than an observed existence of aether. In particular he felt that Miller did not take enough care in guarding against thermal gradients in the room where the experiment took place, as, unlike most interferometry experiments, Miller conducted his in a room where the apparatus was deliberately left open to the elements to some degree.” (For perfectly understandable reasons previously explained by Miller himself) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dayton_Miller#Aether_research
Einstein wrote to Shankland around 1955: Wiki: “I thank you very much for sending me your careful study about the Miller experiments. Those experiments, conducted with so much care, merit, of course, a very careful statistical investigation. This is more so as the existence of a not trivial positive effect would affect very deeply the fundament of theoretical physics as it is presently accepted.
You have shown convincingly that the observed effect is outside the range of accidental deviations and must, therefore, have a systematic cause. You made it quite probable that this systematic cause has nothing to do with “ether-wind,” but has to do with differences of temperature of the air traversed by the two light bundles which produced the bands of interference. Such an effect is indeed practically inevitable if the walls of the laboratory room have a not negligible difference in temperature. It is one of the cases where the systematic errors are increasing quickly with the dimension of the apparatus.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_S._Shankland
It’s interesting to note that Shankland was given Millers job as the Ambrose Swasey Professor of Physics at Case School for Applied Sciences.
Miller had commented long before: Wiki: “The trouble with Professor Einstein is that he knows nothing about my results. … He ought to give me credit for knowing that temperature differences would affect the results. He wrote to me in November suggesting this. I am not so simple as to make no allowance for temperature.”
Einstein’s relativity prediction that no aether should be observable was a pretty safe bet, as no physicist had detected it after decades of trying. It was in the same dilemma as is plasma fusion today, with sixty years of failure. It is never mentioned that the whole of electronics was and is based upon the aether being a reality. But if this were to be admitted then particle physics would be required to answer some seriously hard questions.
freespace.virgin.net: “Even so,…Michelson-Morley originally obtained a slight positive result which has been systematically ignored or misrepresented by modern physics. As stated by Michelson-Morley: “…the relative velocity of the earth and the ether is probably less than one-sixth the earth’s orbital velocity, and certainly less than one-fourth. … The experiment will therefore be repeated at intervals of three months, and thus all uncertainty will be avoided.”” (Michelson-Morley 1887)
Unfortunately, and in spite of all claims to the contrary, Michelson-Morley never undertook those additional experiments at the different seasonal configurations, to “avoid all uncertainty”. However, Miller did. Over many years, he developed increasingly sensitive apparatus, using them at higher altitudes and in open structures, making clear and positive detection of the ether. His experiments yielded systematic periodic effects which pointed to a similar identifiable axis of cosmic ether-drift, though of a variable magnitude, depending upon the season, time of day, density of materials shielding or surrounding the apparatus, and altitude at which the experiment was undertaken. He argued that basement locations, or interferometers shielded with opaque wood or metal housings, yielded the most tiny and insignificant effects, while those undertaken at higher altitudes and in less dense structures yielded more readily observable effects. The Michelson-Morley experiment, by comparison, was undertaken in the basement of a stone building closer to sea-level. Even so, it produced a slight positive result which was in agreement with Miller’s results.
Did the Michelson-Morley experiments prove there was no “aether wind”? Probably not! They have been accepted by almost everyone as giving a “null” result, but in point of fact they showed a very interesting periodic variation indicating something. If it was the presence of an aether wind, then it was not behaving in the way they expected, but it was definitely something that needed further investigation, and Dayton Miller, working at first with Morley, undertook the task. The variations proved to be reproducible and to show systematic changes with time of year and some other factors. He also showed, incidentally, that the effect disappeared if you put the apparatus in a thick-walled enclosure, which nullifies several of the more recent tests. He summarised his work in great detail in a review paper in 1933 (Miller, Dayton C, The Ether-Drift Experiments and the Determination of the Absolute Motion of the Earth, Reviews of Modern Physics 5, 203-242 (1933)). For a much shorter version written in 1940 (the year before he died) see his article for the Cleveland Plain Dealer.”
orgonelab.org: “Miller’s observations were also consistent through the long period of his measurements. He noted, when his data were plotted on sidereal time, they produced “…a very striking consistency of their principal characteristics…for azimuth and magnitude… as though they were related to a common cause… The observed effect is dependent upon sidereal time and is independent of diurnal and seasonal changes of temperature and other terrestrial causes, and…is a cosmical phenomenon.” (Miller 1933, p.231) ” http://www.orgonelab.org/miller.htm
peswiki.com: ”Einstein changed his opinion about the aether concept. In a lecture meant for his inauguration at the University of Leiden in 1920, Einstein stressed that space is “endowed with physical quantities” He held that general relativity attributed tangible physical properties to space including some kind of medium for light, although not a material one. Shortly before his lecture in Leyden in 1920 he admitted in the paper: “Grundgedanken und Methoden der Relativittstheorie in ihrer Entwicklung dargestellt”: “Therefore I thought in 1905 that in physics one should not speak of the ether at all. This judgement was too radical though as we shall see with the next considerations about the general theory of relativity. It moreover remains, as before, allowed to assume a space-filling medium if one can refer to electromagnetic fields (and thus also for sure matter) as the condition thereof “. http://peswiki.com/index.php/PowerPedia:Aether
Negative Resistors: A recent example of scientific energy censorship
Excerpted from “On Extracting Electromagnetic Energy from the Vacuum,” IC-2000, by Tom Bearden.
In a July 9, 1998 keynote address at the Fifth International Conference on Composites Engineering in Las Vegas, Dr. Deborah D. L. Chung, professor of mechanical and aerospace engineering at University at Buffalo (UB), reported that she had observed apparent negative resistance in interfaces between layers of carbon fibers in a composite material. Professor Chung holds the Niagara Mohawk Chair in Materials Research at UB and is internationally recognized for her work in smart materials and carbon composites. The negative resistance was observed in a direction perpendicular to the fiber layers.
A paper describing the research was submitted by Chung to a peer-reviewed journal, and a patent application was filed by the University. Several negative articles appeared quickly in the popular scientific press. Conventional scientists were quickly quoted as proclaiming that negative resistance was against the laws of physics and thermodynamics. Others thought perhaps the UB researchers had made a little battery and were unaware of it.
Professor Chung is the leading “smart materials” scientist in this country, and a scientist of international reputation. Her team tested the negative resistance effect thoroughly, for a year in the laboratory. There is no question at all about it being a true negative resistor. If there is a team in this country anywhere qualified to test a negative resistance effect in carbon materials, it is Professor Chung and her team at UB.
On the website for the University of Buffalo, it was announced that the invention would be offered for commercial licensing. A Technical Data Package was available for major companies interested in licensing and signing the proper non-disclosure agreements. Shortly thereafter this was no longer true, the data package was no longer available, and there was an indefinite hold on licensing and commercialization. It is still on hold as of this writing. Read it all here: http://cheniere.org/misc/chung.htm
en.wiki:”In July 1998, Deborah Chung and Shoukai Wang of the University of Buffalo presented the results of an experiment that showed an apparent absolute negative resistance in bare carbon fibers held together by pressure.”
In Chung’s own words: “True negative resistance in the former sense is not possible due to energy (conservation) consideration. However, apparent negative resistance in the former sense is reported here. … Although the negative resistance reported here is apparent rather than true, its mechanism resembles that of true negative resistance (which actually does not occur due to energetics) in that the electrons flow in the unexpected direction relative to the applied current/voltage.” (The sheer frustration is apparent)
Wang, Chung, Apparent negative electrical resistance in carbon fibre composites. 20
WILHELM REICH – ORGONE ENERGY
In Defense of Wilhelm Reich: An Open Response to
Nature and the Scientifc / Medical Community, DeMeo J In_Defense_of_Wilhelm_Reich_An_Open_Resp
The Wilhelm Reich Infant Trust