Central claims: Malove-Eugene (Mallove, "Tesla and the Aether", Infinite Energy 48, 2003)

Note on name: the folder is spelled "Malove"; the author is Eugene F. Mallove. Single document, 4 pages, full text layer; no source gap. Most experimental claims are reported from the Correas' own monographs (not peer reviewed in a journal per the text); only the acupuncture paper (PNAS 1998) is a peer-reviewed source.

1. Pulsed Abnormal Glow Discharge (PAGD) tubes of Paulo and Alexandra Correa produce about 10 times more power out than in (output shaft power over DC input power), according to Mallove's own observations in their laboratory in 2000-2002 (the article gives no data, instruments or definition; the only figures, 50 W DC in and about 500 W motor shaft power out, are in his 14 June 2001 letter and refer to his last visit; Mallove is the Correas' sympathetic editor). [read: p.3; letter in research/files]
2. Tesla coils emit a "massfree" radiation that is not electromagnetic and not from ionic emissions, and pulsed input converts local aether energy to electric form (Correa conclusion as reported; no numbers given; the monographs are cited in the reference list as ABRI S2-13, S2-14 and S2-16, which the Correa bibliography numbers AS2-13/14/16; the earlier "S2-13 to S2-15" in this project was a Step 1 error, not Mallove's). [read: p.3-4]
3. There are two forms of electricity: ordinary "massbound" electron flow, and a massfree "cold electricity" (Mallove's suggested name) that travels as Tesla waves through gas and vacuum and along wires. [read: p.3]
4. The aether (a dynamic one, per Tesla and Reich) is real and was dropped from physics by relativity's fashion rather than by experiment; Tesla's global power by longitudinal waves was therefore possible. [read: p.2-3]
5. Biological "energies" outside accepted physics exist: a foot acupuncture point drove visual cortex activation at least 1,000 times faster than known nerve speed (So, Jones, Kidney, Saito, PNAS 1998, as described by Mallove), and Galvani had detected massless "Tesla radiation" (Correa monograph quoted). [read: p.3-4]
6. Establishment science suppresses experiment-based challenges (cold fusion, Tesla, aether, acupuncture) and favours gigantic projects; the dispute should be settled in the laboratory. [read: p.1, 4]
7. Cold fusion/LENR (low-energy nuclear reactions) is experimentally established ("hundreds of experiments that show irrefutable evidence"), including easy transmutation without electric input, spectral and calorimetric evidence that electron clouds are not what standard quantum mechanics says, and (counterfactually) light-water nickel/platinum excess heat that a turn-of-the-century electrochemist could have found; the existing lattice-dynamics theories (Schwinger, Hagelstein, Chubb) are "almost certainly doomed", and understanding the "nuclear active environment" (Storms) requires a return to the aether. No experiment is cited. This is Mallove's link between his main scientific cause and the aether thesis of claims 4 and 6. [read: p.1-2]

Minor statements not made into central claims (all in facts.json key_claims): the accelerating-expansion result depends on redshifts being truly cosmological (an intrinsic-redshift view, p.1); Tesla and Lord Kelvin met and shared an interest in life-energy (unsourced, p.4).

Notes on the side article (QE deep read, p.4): Mallove's quotations of Jeff Johnson (Skeptical Inquirer, Summer 1994) match Johnson's words, but "motivated by a belief in their own greatness" is Johnson's paraphrase of Martin Gardner, not a Gardner quotation, and Johnson's "egotistical pseudoscience" label is applied to the conference attendees, not to Tesla. The link from Johnson's remark that technology is "too expensive and too complex for any single person to understand" to hot-versus-cold fusion funding is Mallove's inference. Johnson makes no technical argument about Tesla's physics beyond "a flawed understanding of physics and other sciences". Reference 6 mismatch: the article prints "So, Jones, Kidney, Saito, 'Evaluation of Acupuncture Using fMRI and Ultrasonic Imaging', PNAS 95:2670-2673 (1998)", but the Investigator found that PNAS 95:2670 is by Cho, Chung, Jones, Park, Park, Lee, Wong and Min, retracted in 2006 (retraction notice in research/files). Whether a So/Jones/Kidney/Saito work exists is unresolved (a further-reading action in qe.md).