"Vortex Based Mathematics by Marko Rodin"

Originally posted by buddhasystem
He was a teacher of science journalism and a fanatic of cold fusion.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
What I see in Mallove is an obsessive type who could create pages upon pages of pompous cr@p without providing any substantial facts.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Come on Mary, do some Googling. People called him "the torch bearer" and "champion" of cold fusion. But he wasn't only that.

There is quite a bit of difference in connotation between “fanatic” and “obsessive type” as opposed to “the torch bearer” and “champion,” would you agree?

I also asked you the question about when he became a fanatic to see whether or not you had done any checking of your own about Mallove, as opposed to quoting what “they” say.

I’m learning about Mallove at the present time. From what I’ve seen so far, I’d say he was sharp as a tack. I’m going to have to listen to the 12 part video series of him again. It is a goldmine. But of course, that’s just my opinion.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
I believe that Mallove pre-decided that cold fusion is real and free energy is real and that biased his view such that he was trying to verify that pre-conceived notion, rather than learn the truth.

I believe you're wrong about that.

From page 8 of "MIT and Cold Fusion- A Special Report":

When cold fusion was announced, I had the good fortune to
be the chief science writer at the MIT News Office, the main
public relations arm of MIT. . . .

My position at the News Office required me to interact daily
with members of the national and international press. Thus,
when the Pons and Fleischmann announcement occurred, it
was my job to report to the media what certain key scientists at
MIT were thinking about the amazing claims out of Utah.
I had already been instrumental, some weeks before March 23,
1989, in exposing the entire science writing staff and senior editors
of The Wall Street Journal to the hot fusion program at MIT, where
the Alcator line of tokamaks were being developed. I did that
proudly. . . . As an engineer turned writer-engineer,
I had been since age sixteen an advocate for hot fusion.

I believe he told the truth in the above passage.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
A better perspective is to be uncertain if cold fusion really exists or not, and examine the experimental evidence in a neutral fashion, and let the evidence reveal whatever it reveals.

Of course!

Originally posted by buddhasystem
www.aetherenergy.com...

From the above link, a statement written in 2001 that corresponds with what my research indicates, and which is a problem for innovators:

In recent times we have serendipitously discovered that there are actual lists of forbidden topics, which formally and informally exist at two major scientific publications, Science and Nature, and we are all familiar with how excellent work in the LENR field has been banned from those publications and ridiculed in flimsy journalistic accounts.

This attitude of the scientific community then spills over into the general public. (And forums.)

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by Mary Rose

 

Hopefully, a well-thought out response from a knowledgeable and truth-seeking technically-inclined person on ATS will be posted for this.

Without sarcasm and silly graphics.

Without obfuscation or changing the subject.

Without crude remarks.

Without ridicule.

Without other various fallacies of reason.

Mary, I already answered your question before you asked it when I pointed out that nothing Swartz said would change the shape of the graph here: www.abovetopsecret.com...

The MIT graph was relatively flat and both Swartz and Mallove spoke of a small offset of the flat graph.

The MIT scientists stated that they were looking for a sudden increase like P&F found, as shown in the graph I posted. But since you posted something specific from Swartz, I went to his website and looked at his own cold fusion graph, and it makes my point again so I'll post that here:

world.std.com...

Now to debunk Swartz yourself, look at Swartz's own graph, specifically at these three approximate times on the bottom scale:
800 minutes
2200 minutes
3600 minutes

Now, above each of those three times, do you see how the lines on the graph suddenly increase when the reaction starts? This is the effect that P&F reported, that other researchers reported, and that Swartz himself shows in his own graph, which is clearly ABSENT from the MIT graph.

So, when MIT researchers say they did not see this sudden increase, they are telling the truth whether you look at the graphs they published, or their prepublication graphs.

So I think Swartz is talking out of both of his two faces. From one face he shows a graph himself which shows the sudden increase that was the characteristic signature of the cold fusion experiment. And from the other face he criticzed MIT for reporting they didn't see this effect when they published their paper, yet he provides no evidence that they did see this effect.

A small steady offset wasn't what P&F reported, it's not what other replicators of P&F research found (not back in the first few years after the P&F paper), and it's not what Swartz himself shows in the above graph. The small and steady offset was apparently believed by the MIT researchers to be a problem with the calorimetry experiment.

In that same post I mentioned research by Lonchampt et al who found the sudden increase in 5 out of 18 trials, also dismissed the small excess heat they found on the 13 out of 18 trials which did not show the sudden increase, and this is significant for two reasons:
1. It showed that even obviously unbiased researchers felt a slow steady offset was probably some unaccounted for error in the calorimetry experiment
2. It contrasts the steady offset in the unsuccessful trials with the sudden increase in the successful trials
3. It also shows that even these "successful" researchers were UNSUCCESSFUL in 72% of their trials (13/18) and therefore MIT or any other researcher could easily have unsuccessful trials.

Therefore I conclude the following:
Both Mallove and Swartz seem to have completely ignored what I believe to be a completely valid explanation by MIT scientists that they didn't see the sudden increase that they were looking for as reported by Pons and Fleischmann.
Swartz should be well aware of what this sudden increase looks like as his own graph on his website shows it in 3 places, one for each of three trials.

They also seem to ignore that other research performed by Lonchampt et al also found small steady heat excesses which Lonchampt et al dismissed as probably due to unaccounted for problems with the experimental setup. The focus of their claims of success were on the sudden increases seen in 5 of 18 trials, not some steady background discrepancy.

Therefore I don't find the claims of either Mallove or Swartz to fit the facts stated.

Now regarding whether MIT debunked cold fusion and whether they could have or should have conducted more trials, that to me is a separate question from the claims of Mallove and Swartz. All MIT could really say is they weren't successful in replicating the P&F experiments. When other researchers like Lonchampt et al found that 5 out of 18 trials were successful, and the source of the palladium made a difference, I suppose one could argue that MIT might have wanted to follow up on that and see if they were able to replicate the experiment with a proven source of palladium that resulted in other successful experiments. But I don't see the choices they make about how to allocate their research time and funds as any kind of fraud or conspiracy if they chose not to follow up on that for some reason, though apparently Mallove and Swartz suggest otherwise.

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by buddhasystem
www.aetherenergy.com...

From the above link, a statement written in 2001 that corresponds with what my research indicates, and which is a problem for innovators:

In recent times we have serendipitously discovered that there are actual lists of forbidden topics, which formally and informally exist at two major scientific publications, Science and Nature, and we are all familiar with how excellent work in the LENR field has been banned from those publications and ridiculed in flimsy journalistic accounts.

This attitude of the scientific community then spills over into the general public. (And forums.)

It is remarkable how these people like laud to laud themselves and each other! "Excellent work", "spectacular material", "accomplishments", "most impressive labs". I frankly never heard colleagues exchanging syrupy compliments like that.

The attitude of the scientific community is to look at evidence. In Mallove's case, there is always "forthcoming analysis" etc. If you have a paper with experimental results in it, the results will be judged on merits, like was the case with cold fusion.

And if that stuff merits ridicule, that, as Mallove said on one occasion, is "their problem".

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Mallove got a reply about that which appears on page 38/57 of that pdf:

www.newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/ColdFusion1989/MIT/MIT-ColdFusion-SpecialReport.pdf

The difference in the two results is an
indication of the error intrinsic in the measurement. The implicit
assumption was that we were looking for a fast turn-on of the
anomalous heat production and so it was legitimate to subtract
out a slow baseline drift caused by depletion of the electrolyte.
Whether this is a correct assumption is arguable, but in any event
the main conclusions stand: We detected no significant difference
between H2O and D2O, and in both cases any excess power
would have been less than 79 milliwatts, the level claimed for a
similar experiment by the Utah group. Our paper estimates the
uncertainty of calorimetry measurement as 40 mW, and so you
are free to posit an excess heat less than this level it you wish.

The text I bolded, “it was legitimate to subtract out a slow baseline drift caused by depletion of the electrolyte. Whether this is a correct assumption is arguable” is addressed, I think, by Dr. Swartz in additional text that accompanies the two pairs of graphs on page 12, also bolded:

Accurate calorimetry of electrolytic cells is a difficult task, prone to many
subtle errors, which crept into the 1989 MIT PFC Phase-II Calorimetry
experiment. A schematic diagram of the experiment is at the right. A temperature
sensor monitors the temperature of the water. Auxiliary heater
power is automatically adjusted to maintain constant cell temperature, so
the heater power is a measure of the energy released in the cell. Thus, if
heat is generated within the cell, less heater power is required. However,
water is lost from the cell during the experiment, reducing the ease with
which heat is conducted to the environment, which also tends to reduce the
heater power requirement. During the experiment, the input power shows
a declining heater power trend from water loss. The graphs above have
been compensated for this water-loss trend. “Compensation” is error prone,
especially where the heat release (possible cold fusion power) may be
steady. The MIT researchers later (after their report was challenged) said
they expected a “sudden turn on” of excess heat. Dr. Swartz concludes
that “The Phase -II methodology is flawed because it masks a constant
[steady-state] excess heat.” He also notes, “. . .the PFC data itself indicates
that evaporation was a minor source of solvent loss...most solvent loss
occurred by electrolysis. Such solvent loss would be greater for the H2O
solution...such electrolysis is used commercially to isolate heavy
water...putative differential excess solvent loss for heavy water is not a rea-
sonable explanation for the asymmetric algorithm used to shift the 7/10/1989
D2O curve.”

Another key passage from the above text:

The MIT researchers later (after their report was challenged) said
they expected a “sudden turn on” of excess heat.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
No other document will make the graphs Mallove complained about look like the red line in this graph:

fireball.izmiran.ru/dagomys/previoussite/MeD.pdf

That's what the MIT author was looking for. He didn't see that.

His graph looked more like the blue line. Mallove and Swartz may be saying he should have published the horizontal line a little higher, that's what the debate is about in their minds, but in the MIT author's minds they had little confidence about the significance of any such offset and anyway the red line is what they were looking for and didn't find.

Here's a paper where the authors say they found excess heat on 5 of 18 runs, which means that on 13 of 18 runs they didn't. . . .

Is this introducing a new issue, or is this a reference to “Compensation” as mentioned above?

Bottom line, it is noted in the Timeline on page 5 that on:

June 7, 1991 Professor Ronald Parker publicly disparages the PFC teams’ calorimetry work on cold fusion! (See Exhibit K)

reply to post by buddhasystem


You are responding to a post about major scientific publications refusing to publish excellent work in the LENR field by saying the scientific community looks at evidence.

How are they to look at evidence if they refuse to publish it?

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

You are responding to a post about major scientific publications refusing to publish excellent work in the LENR field by saying the scientific community looks at evidence.

How are they to look at evidence if they refuse to publish it?

First, I remarked on a really hilarious pat-yourself-on-the-back pattern of behavior of Correa and Mallove. Second, there is a plethora of publication venues aside from "Nature" and "Science". What they allege sounds like a really lame excuse to not publish anything. I actually didn't publish anything in "Nature" and "Science" but my papers could be found for years on the shelves of university libraries, as a part of other professional publications. And by the way, all you find on the web, from these people, is "our lab is great" and "we achieved a tremendous breakthrough" and other such cr@p. If they had anything worthy as publication goes, it wouldn't have hurt them to put it out on the web for all to see. I mean hell, what do you have to lose? If truth is there and you got a glimpse of it, it's likely that some other enthusiast can pick it up.

In reality, they haven't got jack.

I realize it's hard to explain how they harvest the mystical Orgone substance (the essence of orgasm, actually, according to their guru Reich) to power their machines. For those who haven't read yet this crap, I'm not kidding, a few of f these contraptions supposedly run on orgasm, according to Correa.

A sad bunch of clowns.

reply to post by buddhasystem


Yes, Reich's work is central to understanding free energy technology. This is discussed here:

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Part 8 is especially relevant to the present discussion:

Dr. Paulo and Alexandra Correa's website is Akronos. I've just discovered it myself. There are three journals listed.

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Yes, Reich's work is central to understanding free energy technology. This is discussed here:

In Part 7, it is brought out that the Michelson-Morley experiment only established that there is no electromagnetic aether. Reich's experiments, on the other hand, revealed a mass-free plenum. Reich did a simple experiment using a mercury thermometer on the surface of a Faraday cage and a similar thermometer suspended in air. In 1941, Reich had a 4 1/2 hour meeting with Einstein about this, but the meeting is not generally known because it is virtually absent from Einstein biographies:

In Part 4, Mallove points outs that the best website for low energy nuclear reactions technical papers is LENR-CANR.

Ever heard of Irving Langmuir?

Link

Since Langmuir's original talk, a number of newer examples of what appear to be pathological science have appeared. Denis Rousseau, one of the main debunkers of Polywater, gave an update of Langmuir in 1992, and he specifically cited as examples the cases of Polywater, Fleischmann's Cold fusion and Jacques Benveniste's "infinite dilution".[11][12] Bauer listed the same examples.[5] Polywater was cited by Langmuir in a 1985 version of his original speech.[5]

reply to post by buddhasystem


Is that the best you can do?




BS, I hope you have a good day.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

Is that the best you can do?

I didn't do it, Dr.Langmuir did. There are some hilarious examples in his talk (which I read in its entirety) of people doing an experiment and getting a specific result, and then when the experiment was surreptitiously sabotaged, still claiming to be getting the same result! It's a good read.

reply to post by beebs

Originally posted by beebs
Little information on the tubes, lots of speculation on his mental health. In fact, I think it is pretty much a hit piece. Similar things happened with Mesmer, only he didn't have investors. But Tesla did. Reich was thrown into jail and his books burned... So you see this kind of thing is to be expected if anything challenges the status quo.

Focusing on Reich has reminded me of the above post, which appears on page 19.

It is astounding that we actually had a book burning in the United States, but we did, under a court order. Mallove talks about it in Part 2:

Reich was marketing medical equipment without approval from FDA. When he moved such equipment across state lines, he violated a prior court order.

www.orgone.org...

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the defendants, THE WILHELM REICH FOUNDATION, WILHELM REICH, and ILSE OLLENDORFF and each and all of their officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, all corporations, associations, and organizations, and all persons in active concert or participation with them or any of them, be, and they hereby are, perpetually enjoined and restrained from doing any of the following acts, directly or indirectly, in violation of Sections 301(a) or 301(k) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U. S. C. C. 331(a) or (k) ) with respect to any orgone energy accumulator device, in any style or model, any and all accessories, components or parts thereof, or any similar device, in any style or model, and any device purported or represented to collect and accumulate the alleged orgone energy:
(1) Introducing or causing to be introduced or delivering or causing to be delivered for introduction into interstate commerce any such article of device which is:
(a) Misbranded within the meaning of Section 502(a) of the Act (21 U. S. C. 352(a) ) by reason of any representation or suggestion in its labeling which conveys the impression that such article, in any style or model, is an outstanding therapeutic agent, is a preventive of, and beneficial for use in any disease or disease condition, is effective in the cure, mitigation, treatment, and prevention of any disease, symptom, or condition; or
(b) Misbranded within the meaning of Section 502 (a) of the Act (21 U. S. C. 352(a) ) by reason of any representation or suggestion in its labeling which conveys the impression that the alleged orgone energy exists; or
(c) Misbranded within the meaning of Section 502(a) of the Act (21 U. S. C. 352(a) ) by reason of any photographic representation or suggestion with a caption, or otherwise, which conveys the impression that such is an actual photograph depicting the alleged orgone energy or an alleged excited orgone energy field; or
(d) Misbranded within the meaning of Section 502(a) of the Act (21 U. S. C. 352(a) ) by reason of any other false or misleading representation or suggestion; or
(e) Adulterated within the meaning of Section 501(c) of the Act (21 U. S. C. 351(c) ) in that (1) its strength differs from or its quality falls below that which it purports or is represented to possess or (2) it purports to collect from the atmosphere and accumulate in said device the alleged orgone energy; or
(2) Doing any act or causing any act to be done with respect to any orgone energy accumulator device while such device is held for sale (including rental, or any other disposition) after shipment in interstate commerce which results in said device becoming misbranded or adulterated in any respect;

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Reich was marketing medical equipment without approval from FDA. When he moved such equipment across state lines, he violated a prior court order.

The powers that be always have some excuse for what they do, naturally.

It is up to us to evaluate those excuses.

Mallove said something on one of the videos I've posted that made me smile - regular people have more sense than physicists. Regular people can figure out that an FDA that gets a court order issued to burn anything that has the word "orgone" in it is a corrupt FDA.

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Reich was marketing medical equipment without approval from FDA. When he moved such equipment across state lines, he violated a prior court order.

The powers that be always have some excuse for what they do, naturally.

It is up to us to evaluate those excuses.

Well if these are excuses, those are good ones. Medical equipment is regulated for a reason, although in all honesty I don't see that a glorified outhouse labeled "orgone accumulator" can seriously harm someone. Still, claiming that a box of plied wood and sheet metal can cure decease strikes me as something a notch below voodoo.

And as the excuses go, nobody beats "pathological scientists". It's beyond laughable that applications of the alleged discoveries are always "just around the corner", and yet never materialize. In some cases the mysterious generator takes off and disappears in the sky, in others (like Bearden), well I guess they genuinely run out of excuses and just shut up. It is telling that Mallove in one of his "letters" claims to have observed that a device allegedly draws 50W of electrical power yet has 500W shaft power. He proceeds to say that it must be trivial to loop the energy and then this become a truly independent fountain of free power. Well I agree with Mallove in this instance, question is how come "most impressive lab" and authors of the "breakthrough" etc did not manage to get a simple dynamo from a surplus store for $5 and connect it to the apparatus? They would be getting 495W of electricity right away at zero cost! A handful of these machines would power a house! There is a telltale sign of a fraud -- there is a measurement that claims to demonstrate there is excessive power, yet a simple step to loop it is not done, and why? Well now, there you will surely find many, many excuses. It's like Bearden -- instead of selling electric power and becoming a multi-billionaire, he's content with selling DVDs on the Internet.

Mallove said something on one of the videos I've posted that made me smile - regular people have more sense than physicists. Regular people can figure out that an FDA that gets a court order issued to burn anything that has the word "orgone" in it is a corrupt FDA.

It would seem that most regular people don't believe that a wooden box concentrates mysterious cosmic energy. You can ask around. Imagine somebody "irradiates" aspirin tablets with "orgone" and starts selling them on eBay under pretense of cancer cure. Stupid? You bet. And Reich's outhouse is not better.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Medical equipment is regulated for a reason . . .

Agreed - but it would be nice if the regulator were worthy of the task.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
I don't see that a glorified outhouse labeled "orgone accumulator" can seriously harm someone. Still, claiming that a box of plied wood and sheet metal can cure decease strikes me as something a notch below voodoo.

Originally posted by Mary Rose

The discussion on this topic begins at 6:30.

Here is a screen shot of the Orgone Accumulator:



What Reich was doing was medical research. He was not selling it as a cancer cure.

By the way, thanks for your link to GALACTIC ORGONOMY EXCHANGE.

This is an aside: There is a book that Reich wrote than has evidently been a source of inspiration for young, earnest, truth-seeking men: Listen, Little Man!

reply to post by Mary Rose


1) Orgone Accumulator is a box lined with sheet metal. And that's all
2) Reich did claim to be curing cancer, which likely does make him a fraud.

www.srmhp.org...

Although Reich’s strange theories have no scientific validity, Reich himself should interest psychiatrists and psychologists as a case study. Reich claimed that “orgone” treatment could cure mankind of social, political, medical, and psychological ills. He claimed that it was the solution to everything from totalitarianism and war to psychoneurosis and cancer. He also called it orgasmotherapy, because he believed that frequent genital orgasms are a goal of treatment and the key to good health. It is said that he caught syphilis while practicing what he preached, but this claim is unproven.

...and he did charge for rental of his orgone outhouse, so technically yes, he was selling a cancer cure.