Malove-Eugene · Source catalogue

Editorial-style article from Infinite Energy issue 48 (2003), 4 PDF pages, two-column text layer (no OCR). Mallove contrasts mainstream physics (mass plus electromagnetic radiation in space-time, now with 'dark energy', citing Adam Riess and the cosmological constant) with Tesla's era, when experiment was the arbiter and the aether was seriously discussed (Maxwell, Encyclopaedia Britannica 9th and 11th editions). He quotes Tesla's 1891 AIEE address ('electricity and ether phenomena are identical') and says Einstein's relativity removed the aether from physics. He recounts Tesla's hope of global power distribution via longitudinal waves in a resonating Earth cavity. He then reports his own experience with Paulo and Alexandra Correa's Pulsed Abnormal Glow Discharge (PAGD) tubes (profiled in Infinite Energy #7-9, 1996), stating a roughly 10/1 power ratio from his own observations in the Correa laboratory in 2000-2002, with no instruments or data given in the article. The ratio is output shaft power over DC input power: the only numbers Mallove gives anywhere are in his 14 June 2001 letter to the Correas (research/files, [read]), which says that on his last visit (stated there as the later visit, the first having been earlier) he observed 50 W DC input to the PAGD reactor and about 500 W mechanical shaft power from the motor. He summarises the Correas' Tesla-coil experiments (thermometers, electroscopes, GM counters, oscilloscopes, neon indicators, Faraday cages, plate antennas; no numbers given), reported from their ABRI monographs S2-13, S2-14 and S2-16 (as printed in the reference list, refs 3-5; the Correa bibliography numbers them AS2-13, AS2-14, AS2-16; the body text cites only '3,4,5', and the string 'S2-15' does not appear in the article. An earlier version of this entry wrote 'S2-13 to S2-15', which was a Step 1 error, not Mallove's): Tesla coils emit 'massfree' non-electromagnetic radiation, and pulsed input converts 'local aether energy to electric form'; two electric field types (proximal massbound, distal massfree). Mallove suggests the name 'cold electricity' for massfree electricity. He mentions Wilhelm Reich's dynamic non-luminiferous aether as inspiration for the Correas' further thermal and electroscopic measurements (secondhand). He links this to biological energies via Galvani versus Volta, and cites So, Jones, Kidney and Saito (PNAS 95:2670-2673, 1998) on acupuncture and fMRI: a foot acupuncture point produced near-instant visual cortex activation, localized to a fraction of a millimetre, at least 1,000 times faster than known nerve transmission; he reports Joie Jones saying (SSE meeting, June 2001) that fMRI time resolution of about 80 microseconds means the true speed may be higher. Mallove says the acupuncture paper was rejected without review by other journals (no journals named, no source). The side article rebuts a 1994 Skeptical Inquirer (CSICOP) cover story by Jeff Johnson that mocked Tesla and the International Tesla Society, argues that gigantism explains why hot rather than cold fusion is funded, and asserts that simple table-top experiments could show the foundations of high-energy physics are weak (assertion, no evidence). PAGES 1-2 (QE deep read): the article opens by arguing that conventional science is patching the Big Bang with 'dark matter', 'dark energy' and 'quintessence'; cites Adam Riess (the text says 'MIT-trained physicist ... at the Space Telescope Institute') via a New York Times profile by Dennis Overbye (18 Feb 2003) and the 13.7 billion years +/- 200 million years age (NYT 12 Feb 2003, which he contrasts with 'some 15 billion years'); says the accelerating-expansion claim depends on cosmic red-shifts being 'truly of cosmic significance, not merely local-to-the-observed galaxy or quasar' (an intrinsic-redshift position, stated in one clause and called 'another depressing story' he does not develop); then makes his central scientific-political statement: 'hundreds of experiments that show irrefutable evidence of nuclear reactions occurring at low-energy (LENR/cold fusion)' were 'dumped into the trash bin'; 'easy transmutation phenomena associated with cold fusion/LENR (sans even direct electric energy input!)'; 'spectral and calorimetric evidence that electron clouds around nuclei are not what standard QM says they are'; the lattice-dynamics theories of Schwinger, Hagelestein [sic] and the Chubbs 'are almost certainly doomed'; and understanding the 'nuclear active environment (NAE)' (Edmund Storms's term) 'will most surely have to return to fundamental questions about electricity and the aether'. He calls cold fusion 'the canary in the mine'. He quotes the Britannica 9th edition (c.1875, article by Maxwell) and the 11th edition (1910: five pages on the aether, Michelson's null result, 'the modern or electrodynamic theory of the aether'), then writes that 'had an electrochemist been around then with an accurate calorimeter, excess heat in ordinary water electrolysis in nickel/platinum systems might have been discovered at the turn of the century' (a counterfactual about light-water Ni/Pt electrolysis, stated without data). He contrasts '$1.5 billion of newly minted DOE money for hot fusion' with LENR. He quotes Tesla's May 1891 AIEE (Columbia College) address ('electricity and ether phenomena are identical', cited to Seifer 1996 p.71) and says Time magazine's cover for Tesla's 75th birthday is dated 'July 10, 1931' (as printed). SIDE ARTICLE (p.4, 'Tesla and the Science Cops'): Mallove says Tesla shared Lord Kelvin's interest in 'the electrical component of life-energy' and that 'the two had actually met' (unsourced). His quotations of Jeff Johnson were compared with the saved Skeptical Inquirer, Summer 1994 (Vol. 18, pp.366-378) article 'Extraordinary Science and the Strange Legacy of Nikola Tesla': the words Mallove quotes from Johnson ('ideas gain stature as unsuccessful attempts to discredit them are made'; 'a panoply of bizarre and grandiose ideas ... despite a flawed understanding of physics and other sciences'; 'A mediocre artist may acquire an exaggerated reputation by dying just before the onset of a dark age ...'; 'technological development today is too expensive and too complex for any single person to understand it all') are all verbatim in Johnson. Context differences found: (1) Johnson's 'ordinary science' sentence is the setup for a joke that 'extraordinary science' (the Tesla Society conference's name) keeps its ideas despite successful challenges; Mallove answers it as a statement about the whole of science, and the 'unsuccessful attempts' sentence is a general statement about how ideas gain stature. (2) 'motivated by a belief in their own greatness, unrecognized by the world' is Johnson's paraphrase of Martin Gardner (Fads and Fallacies, 1957, pp.11-14, footnote 2), written without quotation marks in Johnson; Mallove prints it as a quotation of Gardner. Johnson applies the 'egotistical pseudoscience' label to the conference attendees (he says the conference was 'made up almost entirely of this latter group'), not to Tesla himself. (3) The 'technological development ... too expensive and complex' sentence is in Johnson's 'Why Tesla?' box about Edison making inventing a corporate endeavour; Johnson does not mention fusion or funding policy. The step from this to hot-versus-cold fusion funding is Mallove's own inference. (4) Mallove gives the title as 'The Strange Legacy of Nikola Tesla: Extraordinary Science'; the printed title is 'Extraordinary Science and the Strange Legacy of Nikola Tesla'. About Tesla's physics Johnson says only the one sentence above ('flawed understanding of physics and other sciences'), that in middle age Tesla pursued projects 'dubious at the time and ... now regarded as scientific and technological dead ends', and that 'before the turn of the century Tesla had made real achievements, but he spent his last decades destitute and forgotten'; he gives no technical argument against any Tesla claim. Most of Johnson's article is a report of the 1993-94 conference exhibits (ozone generators, 'magnetic battery', Tesla coil health devices). [read: p.1, p.2, p.4; research/files/SkepticalInquirer-1994-Johnson-Tesla.pdf]

Key claims

• Pulsed Abnormal Glow Discharge (PAGD) tubes made by Paulo and Alexandra Correa show an over-unity power ratio of approximately 10/1, shaft power out over DC power in (Mallove's own observations in the Correa laboratory, 2000-2002; the only numbers, 50 W in and about 500 W out, are in his 14 June 2001 letter and refer to his last visit).
• Tesla coils emit a massfree, non-electromagnetic, non-ionic radiation, distinct from conventional transverse electromagnetic radiation (Correa conclusion as reported by Mallove).
• Tesla waves alone can trigger a ratemeter via a plate antenna at substantial distances (Correa result as quoted by Mallove, no numbers).
• A pulsed primary induces in the closely coupled secondary a conversion of local aether energy to electric form (Correa hypothesis).
• Two kinds of electricity exist: massbound (electron flow) and massfree ('cold electricity') that can flow in and around wires and propagate as Tesla waves through gas and vacuum.
• Tesla's wireless power distribution through the aether by longitudinal waves in the Earth's resonating cavity was physically possible, and Tesla lit bulbs at good distances (unsourced).
• Electricity and aether phenomena are identical (Tesla 1891, quoted); the aether was dropped from physics because of relativity, not because of experiment (Mallove's argument).
• Galvani's animal electricity experiments detected the same massless, electrically neutral 'Tesla radiation' later reduced to electromagnetism (Correa monograph S2-28 as quoted).
• Stimulating a foot acupuncture point produced reproducible, localized visual cortex activation, with signal speed by fMRI at least 1,000 times known nerve conduction speed (So et al., PNAS 1998, as described by Mallove).
• Mainstream science dismisses discoveries that do not fit prevailing theory (LENR/cold fusion, aether, bio-energies) and funds gigantic projects instead of table-top experiments.
• Hundreds of experiments show irrefutable evidence of nuclear reactions at low energy (LENR/cold fusion), including easy transmutation phenomena even without direct electric energy input (Mallove's statement, p.1-2; no experiment cited).
• Spectral and calorimetric evidence shows electron clouds around nuclei are not what standard quantum mechanics says they are (Mallove, p.2; no evidence cited).
• The lattice-dynamics LENR theories of Schwinger, Hagelstein and the Chubbs are almost certainly doomed; understanding the 'nuclear active environment' (Storms's term) will require a return to fundamental questions about electricity and the aether (Mallove's opinion, p.2).
• Ordinary light-water electrolysis in nickel/platinum systems would have shown excess heat at the turn of the twentieth century, had an electrochemist with an accurate calorimeter looked (Mallove's counterfactual, p.2; no data).
• Dark-energy-driven accelerating expansion depends on cosmic red-shifts being truly cosmological rather than local to the galaxy or quasar (Mallove, p.1; an intrinsic-redshift position, not developed in the article).
• Tesla was interested in the electrical component of life-energy as was Lord Kelvin, and the two had met (Mallove, p.4; unsourced).

Relevance: The only document in the folder and a compact statement of Mallove's aether, Tesla and 'free energy' position. It connects his cold fusion advocacy to the Correa aetherometry programme (PAGD tubes, Tesla coils, bio-energies) and shows his stake as editor of Infinite Energy and supporter of the Correas. Its first two pages tie his cold fusion/LENR advocacy to the aether (his stated thesis: LENR cannot be understood without 'fundamental questions about electricity and the aether'). It carries one first-hand claim of his (the 10/1 power ratio) without data, and reports the rest from the Correas' in-house monographs.

Mainstream conflict: Conflicts with: energy conservation (a 10/1 power output over input); Maxwell electromagnetism and special relativity (a massfree non-electromagnetic radiation, longitudinal waves in free space, a dynamic aether); the standard view that Tesla coil output is electromagnetic plus ionic; and standard fMRI temporal resolution (an 80 microsecond figure is far finer than the seconds typically quoted [memory, high confidence]) and nerve conduction physiology. Mainstream considers the dark energy and cosmological constant picture settled enough to build on; Mallove treats it as patching. LENR claims (p.1-2): the 2004 US DOE review panel was split on whether cold fusion evidence was conclusive [memory, medium; the arbiter's web check is in arbiter.md]; no accepted theory explains the claimed nuclear reactions at low energy, and light-water Ni/Pt excess heat is claimed in the literature but not accepted by mainstream calorimetry [memory, medium]. Intrinsic (non-cosmological) redshift conflicts with the standard reading of redshift as expansion [memory, high].