A pioneering science: how and what for?

An open society of creators. Within reach, as liberation of human beings from their own humanity. A society traced across history, across Time, by singular souls and collectivities that transcended history and Time, transcended their own human nature. And in that line where each individual singularity is already a collectivity, a new species on its own, we would find Reich, no less than Deleuze, Bergson and so many others. Beacons of thought and of a new perception sent across the desert periods of closed societies. Perhaps that is more than any of them wished for. Perhaps it places too much of an emphasis on the liberating role of knowledge, for life and for mankind. Perhaps liberation is still too religious an idea. And now that religion and politics have failed to deliver mankind from the vicissitudes of nature and of power in a mass-society, “science has taken the role of mankind’s deliverer” [1]. But this role really belongs to official science and its officiating disciplines, for it is there alone that science is capable of exerting Power. In fact, the mass of humanity is more than happy to leave the matter of salvation in the hands of power and knowledge specialists - first, priests, then politicians and professional revolutionaries and, at last, scientists and technocrats. As John Gray puts it, “average humanity takes its saviours too lightly to need saving from them. Its would be deliverers need it more than it needs them. When it looks to its deliverers it is for distraction, not salvation” [2]. The deliverers need humanity as is, with all its subjections, in order to sell it the fiction of liberation, a fiction that has now become pure entertainment or spectacle. But average humanity - whatever that is - is addicted to that entertainment or spectacle. It cannot do without it.

Are, then, singular souls or collectivities condemned to belong, forever more, to the caste of the specialists of salvation? Does Bergson’s ‘open-society-traced-across-times’ reduce just to the rule of the specialists of science and technology, the specialists in the techniques of power? Is science condemned to rule our Survival in the name of delivering us from it? Is it the last artifact of an insane rationality, a mere justification of Survival with nothing else left to do but rationalize the operations of Power?

Humanity may well need deliverance from its power specialists and their official science, more than it needs deliverance from itself or redemption in the eyes of imaginary gods. But does that mean that individual human beings or human collectivities do not need deliverance from humanity, from what is human, too human, in their daily lives, from what submits all living to a survival, to the logic of organized Survival? That would be tantamount to condemning the singularity of any and every soul, condemning it to a faceless average humanity, condemning all knowledge and science to turn into a power, a cracia, a form of Potestas, the power of the cadre, impersonal, universal. What Bergson had in mind was an open society, one composed of creative differences or singularities - not the rule of an elite, no matter how proletarized, ‘technologized’ or ‘well-informed’.

The journey of knowledge or of a pioneering science cannot be so reduced - to a power that rules by its specialization and by the spectacle it affords of a life submitted to representation, of survival as the daily representation of the living. The liberation Bergson speaks of is a liberation of Life, not the liberation of knowledge and science to rule a mass of humanity, or the liberation of a mass of humanity from the rationalist yoke of knowledge and science, by indifference and entertainment. What Bergson had in mind was a singular ennoblement, and if it tended towards anything, it was toward the liberation of thought, expression and the exploration of Life and the cosmos. At the limit, this concerns a liberation of Life and the living from the bondage of human survival, the yokes of our animal nature and the yokes of culture, of society, of the average humanity. This liberation of Life is, indissociably, liberation from salvation and all rules of the specialists of salvation - religious, politico-economic and technocratic. It is a liberation from all forms of Potestas that define what is human and organize our perception, our feelings and thoughts. This liberation is not the work of science, even a pioneering science; a pioneering science always points towards it - as such a science only finds its complete freedom in an open society - but it cannot, by itself, liberate human beings from their humanity, from their human-ness.

The open society, then, remains a trans-historical reality, incarnated neither in a class nor in an ideology, neither in a science, nor in an epoch or in an historical power. It is not the beginning of a new history, nor the end of history, but a multiplicity of races, of singularities, outside of history. It is a reminder, a “cosmic reminiscence”, of the fact that Life is only free when it alone guides the effort of science - not when it is subject to science and the techniques of powers set above Life, to dominate it and reduce it to an image of the lived. Science cannot surmount Life. It can only serve Life’s designs with better boxes of tools - to permit new percepts, different and finer ways of thinking, feeling, perceiving and being. Pioneering science, then, is not salvation - only a breadth of fresh air, a bit of water and oxygen, something we all could do with while traversing the closed deserts of our epoch, and we would all be richer and saner for it. But it is nothing if Life and the living do not learn how to use it, if new modes of employment of its tools and technologies fail to be invented by collectivities of singular souls. Pioneering science signals to us where that gap is in human beings that opens us up to all the nonhuman worlds that inhabit us in continuity with all the nonhuman worlds that stand outside and beyond us. That science, the science of the pioneer, a science of events, a science of energy and its microfunctions, can never be reduced to the utilitarian notion of its use as salvation of mankind or as justification for the rules of separate powers, as the logic of their Power. Science is either life, life that is lived, science that breathes and is living, or it is never more than a knowledge which condemns nature and men, while posing as Man’s salvation and serving the designs of Power. Then, all that is left of science is knowledge that serves the rule of Death and the dead over the living.

“Gokhlayeh had stopped before the council fire, and people were silent. “The ones who go are fools!”, he said harshly. “there will be no guns seen at the feast, but the bluecoats do not come with peace; they come with death! I see the Apache lying on the ground and dying. There is no peace!” The Bedonkohes had gone, and the people of Tonto, the Coyotero, and the Mescalero who had feasted with the bluecoats had died, writhing in agony on the ground. The food had been laced with strychnine. Had Gokhlayeh seen? Was he a Shaman?”

F. Carter, “Watch for me on the mountain”, 1973

“Even as it enables poverty to be diminished and sickness to be alleviated, science will be used to refine tyranny and perfect the art of war.”

J. Gray, “Straw Dogs”, 2002

The age of massfree energy technology and the political problem it poses

In the previous volume of Experimental Aetherometry (Vol. IIB), we spoke of ‘hiding in plain view’ as the best way to hide a secret. That is where the secrets of Aetherometry as theory of the massfree Aether have been hiding now for some 5 years, and where Reich himself placed the secrets of a mass-free energy technology - which have now been hidden for nearly 50 years. Soon a century will have passed since Tesla began his quest for the Aether Motor. By themselves, these simple facts are sufficient proof of the blindness generated by the characterological armor of emotions and desires, and the historical and cultural powers of social and libidinal repression(s) - even and above all as this narrowness affects science and the very process of scientific discovery. Accordingly, this book and its companion are a homage to Wilhelm Reich, to his work - and so is the silence that has met his work for the past 50 years. It traversed a desert, a desert still ongoing.

Reich himself consigned all his unpublished notes and documents to a 50 year silence. Why? Because he did not believe that his epoch was ready for them - to understand them, to employ them only for beneficial uses - and he thought that it would take at least another generation, or a few generations, to find perhaps an epoch disposed to listen, to be critical, and to employ the tools and methods he had uncovered to affirm Life and the living; an epoch that would be fair and just towards his work. The readiness of an epoch to receive a scientific discovery is a subject too difficult to examine here at length, but one can readily understand how the science of massfree energy had little to say to a world where materialism alone held (or holds) the reign of the physical (only that is physical which is material...), and all properties that are not material were and are condemned to the metaphysics of spiritualism - or even, as is the case nowadays, to a metaphysics of physics. An epoch and its prejudices cannot be simply overturned by a new technology, by a possible product of pioneering science. Between pioneering science and its becoming a technology, much must come to intervene - just about all else intervenes! Assuming an effective discovery or breakthrough, experimental or analytical, a pioneering science must, to begin with, have at its disposal some means - intellectual, energetic and material - in order to become such a science, or line, at all. Then, it must gain some form of collective articulation - be of interest and incident upon a certain state of affairs - that alone permits attracting further means of development. Only afterwards can it generate a technological output, if the means of development permit such applications. So, the extraction of a technology from a scientific journey of pioneering investigation is far from being a trivial matter. Yet, experimental science is filled with such journeys, attempts and successes, journeys that couple to one another in diverse ways, to generate lines of investigation and fields of research - the very circulatory system of science itself.

But no technology can by itself change the conditions or the life of any collectivity - or its way of thinking or doing science. These are political choices, or ethical ones, if you will. Today, physics is no more a physics of energy than it was 50 years ago; and the concept of energy is no less reduced to matter or mass than it was; and the nature of life and spirit is no less misunderstood and mysticized than it was. It’s just done in slightly different and madder ways now. Thus, the conditions for understanding the new paradigm of massfree energy are just as distant as they were back then - except perhaps for the globalization of all markets of science, including those afforded by the margins, where it is now possible to uphold any doctrine, no matter how irrational, illogical, or outrightly stupid it is, and claim that it is ‘a science’ threatened by some conspiracy from ‘the powers that be’. Dilution of the new science of the Aether in the amass of the quasi-religious and crypto-religious doctrines of marginalized science is no advancement over outright rejection of the science of massfree energy by official and officiating priest-scientists. And even as we were able to bring Reich’s Orgone Motor back to life, and to rejuvenate this lost science; or present here an example of what the science of Aetherometry can do; or extract a new, silent, ‘free-for-the-taking’ power technology from this science - one that proves its irreducible reality and could be of great benefit to this planet and not just human collectivities; even as we are able to bring about all these ‘good things’ through science and in technology, the silence and the distortion continues and will continue deafening all ears; diluting all the differences; erasing what there is of science in Reich’s pioneering effort and in our own.

So, after 50 years, very little has changed. Human relations changed, perhaps tremendously in what concerns the nature of capital and labor, customs and rights; but the unconscious and nonhuman relations of human collectivities between themselves and with nature have changed very little, retaining the archaisms, mechanistic and mystic, and reinsuflating them with a new universalism of the Human Form that carries with it the same domination of nature, the same logic in the choice of ‘viable’ technologies (‘realism’).

At the mark of these 50 years since Reich’s untimely death, and writing these words exactly two years after the murder of Eugene Mallove, we are reminded of how little the world changes in spirit even as it changes ever faster in material appearance. Change is represented, condemned to the appearance or seemingness of change; it is a perpetual change in style but not in modes of existence or modality of living. The representation of change itself constantly operates to latch on to any real desire for change. The theatricality of change becomes the mode of conservation of the sameness of character: hence there is no difference in what the world finds in Reich’s texts or work today; it is all an amalgam with the classical Aether theories, or the Aether drift model of this or that other fellow, or a Buddhist interpretation; or an amalgam with Ron Hubbard’s Scientology; or an amalgam where Function Y equals a ‘Joe’ cell; or where Orgone is Ch’i, or Chardin’s spiritualization of Matter. There is no end to these absurdities. Stupidity is, by its very nature, infinite - a bad infinite, the one to avoid. Its only purpose is to erase the differences. The human world has an infinite capacity for being stupid, and seems bent on exploring it without end. Only when differences are erased can one equalize the unequal - and this is the most general principle in the modern logic of Power. Since it is all theatre, and not science - and bad theatre at that - it’s hardly surprising that 50 years have sufficed for nothing in making the human world more receptive to the science of massfree energy. Yes, it’s true, the old class-society has been replaced by a technocratic rule, property by the perception of value, and the despotic State by some form of an automated Bio-Power. But all life and time of living has now been made subordinate to the the system of organized Survival, even as the latter became organized more dysfunctionally. The subordination of Life to Power (Potestas) has only intensified, precisely as every leader has now become a follower, every member of the technocratic elite a proletarian, and every proletarian a cadre.

Just as the science of massfree Aether exists and has existed outside of class-society in all its forms, classical and modern, so does the technology engendered by this science exist seemingly outside historical time, outside the power constraints of the human collectivities or the benefits it could confer them. It may well be that the writing of a pioneering science is never made for the masses - even if that is its stated intention, or the intention of its benefits - but is rather written for other pioneers to come, across Time and Space, from time to time, “de loin en loin”. But now that massfree energy technologies are here, the science of the massfree Aether and its technology have become political problems - problems that put into question our human ‘way of life’, its logic of Survival and the global system of Power.

It is not the promise of a salvation one will find in these pages, but the tools of a cosmic engineering that could be used for much good and much harm. We belong to no scientific establishment, from the center or the peripheries, and have no supporters, disciples or sponsors to whom we need to apologize for this work and its ethical and political implications. There are no reasons that we can invoke to shy away from them.

“The emotional plague has in a masterly fashion found a way of building its protective devices. Not only does it cunningly hook up with everyone’s guilty conscience; it has put into circulation high-sounding ethical rules, which are perfect in themselves, such as: ‘One does not pay attention to such things as slander’, or ‘It has been that way and always will be’, or ‘Every pioneer had to suffer’. That something Evil that “has always been” also has to be, is just as much empty talk as that of the ‘naturally suffering pioneer’.”

W. Reich, “Truth versus Modju”, 1952

The combat against the center and peripheries of science

The journey of Aetherometry was not an easy path. We had no abstract desire to rehabilitate Tesla or Reich. It was in the course of our research process that we began to realize what was choking the birth of the age of massfree energy: that it was not just or always the repression and suppression carried out by the conservative center formed by the apparatus of official science - the scientific managerial cadres (bureaucrats and technocrats), the official ‘peer-reviewed’ publications, the mass-media associated with these official publications, or the ‘faddism’ inherent to corporate directions of scientific and technological research. Undoubtedly, there has ‘always’ been a bureaucratic science, a ‘science-central’, and its adoption of technocratic structures and principles of management would not alter the basic exercise of this central power, only the way in which it is applied. Indeed, today this official science is no longer rigid and monolithic, at least in appearance. It comports all sorts of fragments that appear to have semi-autonomous ‘city rights’, for as long as some disaster or other does not befall them. One could say that it was the Copenhagen principle of complementarity which initiated this polymorphism of the sciences, and the fields within each science, but it was there already when the classic age folded and two distinct approaches came into conflict - Relativity (the new repository of the old, what remained of the classical age) and Quantum Mechanics. And one could equally say that this polymorphism did not triumph until the probabilistic discourse was allowed to overtake the tissue or fabric of science, until Quantum Mechanics produced its ‘monsters’. The result, in large traits, is that the center of official science has become all the more insidious and fluid as it is complemented by an officiating science of the isolated fragment, of the discrete territory or field of investigation.

In fact, it is often impossible to say where official science ends and an officiating science begins. Was de Broglie an attempt to put the genie of nature back into the box and strengthen official science against the onslaught of probabilism, or was Heisenberg the new order of a central science yet more dogmatic for appearing to be more fluid and abstract? And so, the problem of science cannot be reduced to the problem of its subordination to a center, of fitting a center or not; and it also relates and rather directly - to the problem of how science is treated by the margins. For the margins of science must constantly choose between falling prey to an official science, be it that of a virtual center, or falling instead into the pit of nonscience, into the spiral of fantasy and atavism.

Most scientists do not realize that the pursuit of science and its method is neither a trivial task nor one devoid of politics - micro and macro. It is a question of oxygen or life - a living science and a science of the living cannot exist where suppression and anoxia reign; for the conditions for thought are absent there too. A living science is therefore confronted with having to combat both the center and the periphery: it is a two-pronged combat. A combat against the center, that is primarily marked by an accumulation of the lines of evidence required to overcome what is dogmatic and nonscience in official paradigms. Without free access to the means of investigation and creation, this is a virtually impossible combat. The substance of the research effort and the combat are denied, in principle. Thus content is precluded. And if there is content, it is suppressed - for that purpose repression of expression, of any and every of its viable forms, suffices. The relationship between a living science and the official center of science is, accordingly, entirely dominated by the negative.

But a living science is also confronted with a combat against the margins that is marked not just by a refusal to return to the center, but by a refusal to become distorted, mystified, mysticized, confused, amalgamated to publicity, religiosified. In many respects, this is a worse fate than being absorbed back to a center. The latter requires lobbing off all autonomy of connections; the expression is either not permitted or, if permitted, is represented - one more piece of the representation of the world to which science has been condemned. But the marginalization of science is often even more severe: it is a twisted expression, a deformed expression that now passes through, carrying a distorted and often inverted content, a false positivity (the ‘yes’ of the donkey, to borrow from Nietzsche). Whereas official science is a system of judgement, officiating sciences and the scientific margins form a system of penalization, a system of the condemnation of life and science by their systematic perversion.

The science center operates by deploying an abstract machine that is legitimized at all times as being consensual. Its axioms are unquestioned and unquestionable. All that falls outside or beyond the discrete set of official axioms, or moves from these to threaten to displace or change any axiom or axioms of the discrete set, is the subject of suppression, repression and ridicule. The center operates, therefore, by selection - acceptance and rejection. Not so the margins, which operate instead by appropriation. All enters by the margins - the officiating fragment that gets attracted back to the center, and fits with its sense or enlarges the sense of the central set of axioms or paradigms; as well as the fragment that is imaginary and acquires a marginal status of its own - like a sect, or a cult of the margins; or, still, the fragment that escapes both the center and the margins and carries the embryo of a new science. But once the margins appropriate a fragment and retain it, what characterizes their work (and, indeed, most of it is unconscious work) is not the repression or suppression of substance, form, content and expression. No, they will accord some substance, they will permit even the wildest of forms, but the expression alone matters, never the content or its articulation.

A pioneering science, therefore, is never one that shares the lines of either official or officiating science, of the center or the margins. It is neither official science nor marginal science.

Examples. We could be simple and cite from Tesla’s or Reich’s lives. In particular, 50 years after the death of the latter, we could cite what has happened to him: a violent repression exercised by the center, by official science and its mechanisms of power - the FDA, the AMA, the AEC, etc - and triggered by members of the margins of journalism and science (the stalinist Mildred Brady, the psychoanalyst Edith Jakobsen, etc), and promoted by policial institutions such as the FBI. So violent, in fact, that America witnessed its first episode of book burning - a distinction bestowed on Reich’s pioneering work in science. And there is good reason to believe that Reich was murdered in prison. And then what? Then, the assimilation by the margins - to all sorts of mysticisms, orientalisms, christianisms; distortion, pure and simple; misreadings, and even false attributions galore. Yes, the psychologism of the Bakers & Co and the College of Orgonomy, that was bad enough - a sort of officiating margin, always hoping to become acceptable to the center, one day, one day. But worse, much worse, a babbling pseudo-scientific discourse - as with the Saharasianist doctrine of James DeMeo or even worse, the inventions of DeMeo’s previous compadre, Joachim Fisher, who perversely and malignantly attributes to Reich the fabricated, ostensively mediumistic, idiocies he invents. The shame is so great that one even finds a fanatical anti-Reichian (Roger Wilcox) who has taken it upon himself, by way of a personal website [3], to attack Reich for the simple-minded notions attributed to Reich by Douglas Marett! A strange fate to be suffered by this remarkable man, Wilhelm Reich. Attacked for what he did not write, discover or believe - and defended for the same hallucinating misattributions. All to avoid considering what he did write, discover or believe. Bad ironies that encapsulate the reality of the combat of a pioneering science: it must try to regain the real outlines of the problems, such as they were when other pioneers confronted them - not as followers, enemies, interpreters or anglers would have them ‘be’. The followers of Reich have been as mistaken and deluded as the detractors of Reich. One must combat the distortion on both sides, to uncover Reich’s own journey, understand its inner logic and the logic of its scientific discoveries, as much as uncover its errors, and their logic. This position and its politics is the only one compatible with science, and with the desire to work through the concrete problems and questions posed by Reich’s scientific investigations. We have, in large measure, been penalized by the Reichian margins for stating this position and practicing this combat. James DeMeo even maintains a jesuitic index where our ‘satanic writings’ are blacklisted as originating in some form of contagious emotional plague [4]. This gives a measure of how strong the reaction of the margins is to our employment of the work of Reich to further the work of science and the possibilities it opened for Life.

So, there is this complement: any official scientist that reads a Reich re-written by a Wilcox, a Marett, a DeMeo, is bound to reject ‘it’ as nonsense. Just as any fanatic from the margins who reads the same Reich with the same eyes, is bound to accept ‘it’ as an act of faith. In either case, there is no justice done to Reich or his work - there is no science in criticizing something for what it is not, and no science in an act of faith, or the dictum of the pope of one more sect. In both cases, distortion and falsification triumph.

To do justice to Reich is to examine his work with the scientific method - to continue it, replicate it and develop it. To take it seriously and refuse to distort it. To find its errors and gaps, and examine them and correct them without doing so in Reich’s name. Only acolytes or mediumistic salesmen make a point of speaking in the names of others. There is no high road here to be found. It is an inescapable war with the center, with the power of official science, and it is an equally inexorable war in the streets with the atavic margins and their obscurantism. And in this modern world of knowledge warfare - there is no street around the corner where ‘they’ are not beating ‘Jews’, where one can cross without seeing the beating or being beaten. There is no high road and no other street to take. The combat is here, on the street, where the beating is occurring, before our own eyes. One cannot be a scientist and not get down in the mud, wrestle in it and with it. Anymore than one can be a scientist and accept having one’s thought dictated by an act of faith on an axiomatic system. Like Musashi, one requires both a long and a short sword - one for the center and the other for the margins.

“The problem of knowing how, with no instruments at their disposal, men [the Dogon] could know the movements and certain characteristics of virtually invisible stars has not been settled, nor even posed. It has seemed more to the point, under these special circumstances, to present the documents in the raw.”

M. Griaule and G. Dieterlen, “A Sudanese Sirius system”, 1950

Reich’s Orgone Motor and Tesla’s Magnifying Transmitter

The present book is the first of a two-volume publication on the Aether Motor/Converter - one dedicated to investigating, reproducing and improving the work of Tesla in his search for the Aether Motor, and the Orgone Motor discovered and invented by Wilhelm Reich in 1947-1948. As it turns out, Reich’s quest took its point of departure, in large measure, from where Tesla had left the quest he had initiated. In the second volume of this series we go beyond the principles of the Orgone Motor to develop a full Aether Motor/Converter (this second volume will also contain a comprehensive index). These two books are also part of the journey of experimental Aetherometry, constituting volumes IIIA and IIIB of that series, and the moment of its technological culmination. They present the reader with a new technology - the power technology of massfree energy - that employs both manifestations of the primary Aether, electric and nonelectric: ambipolar (Tesla) energy and latent heat. It is the beginning of a new age in science and technology - the age of massfree energy. It has been long in coming, but at last, with these two books, our epoch may be able to begin to understand and utilize intelligently the work of those two pioneers that laid the foundations for massfree science and technology: Nikola Tesla and Wilhelm Reich. Let these books rest as a tribute to both of them, their perseverance and finest of intelligences.

Tesla’s search for an Aether Motor that could be plugged anywhere directly into the wheelworks of nature led him to discover resonant power transmission and seek its magnifying principle. As these pages will show, the principle sought by Tesla was further explored by Reich, who embodied it in the principle of complex superimposition that defined the Function Y whose details Reich never revealed. Before Reich’s archives are unsealed, in 2007 or thereafter, we have decided to release - as Gene Mallove wished we would - the methods, principles and embodiments of a science of massfree energy, and the most basic methods to tap energy from the wheelwork of nature. In these pages, the reader will find the methods to engineer active and passive massfree energy devices capable one day of powering the dwellings and vehicles of human collectivities, of open societies. But by themselves they cannot create those societies or open up closed ones.

In the present volume we present almost exclusively the active principles behind the Aether Motor/Converter. In essence, the first active principle involves transmission of ambipolar energy and resonantly tuned receiver circuits. We have already presented evidence as to how resonantly-loaded transmitters of massfree ambipolar radiation can be a source of an apparent excess of massfree energy, when they are not operated to dissipate their energy through the indirect production of electromagnetic radiation [5]. It is a step beyond Tesla, but one that confirms the latter’s contention that his methods of transmission were different from those of Marconi and Pupin, because they permitted a minimization of power losses [6]. However, if receiver circuits are not wired to function as part of a magnifying transmission circuit, power loss is still registered. This was already the problem that bedeviled Tesla in his Colorado Springs experiments. For transmission to be effectively magnified, or power to be gained at the receiver, a method was needed to capture some of the nonelectric massfree energy present in the environment or the media of the transmission. So, the second active principle of transmission requires that the receiver placed at a variable distance become part of the transmission circuit, and that, likewise, the medium of the transmission also become an integral part of the whole circuit - that it be engaged (mobilized) to contribute to the transmission.

It is at this point of the process that Reich’s discovery of Factor Y - one that we show in the present book to also have been anticipated by Tesla - and our rediscovery of its circuitry and functions, enters into the story. For Factor Y is the function of a complex superimposition. It is not simply about how ambipolar radiation can couple kinetic energy to monopolar charges - ie how from unipolar electricity we can extract the duality of ordinary electricity, how from one (ambipolar) one gets two (monopolar), as a principle of bifurcation, the way the stem relates to the arms in a ‘Y’ figure as a principle of arborescence. As we came to find out, and as we detail in these pages, it is a also a principle of the superimposition of two ambipolar fluxes, and of electric and nonelectric forms of mass-free energy. One superimposes the unipolar signal of ambipolar radiation transmitted across the atmosphere (Y) with the unipolar signal of ambipolar radiation transmitted across the ground (X), while superimposing each with the latent heat that is mobilized from the media of the transmission into production of further ambipolar radiation (a bit like the cascade of a reaction of multiplication

- as also happens in a chain reaction or a free-radical reaction); and then one sorts or resolves a superimposed flux of monopolar electric charges, positive and negative, a flux of ordinary electricity, from the superimposition of two fluxes of ambipolar electricity, superimposed between themselves and with distinct fluxes of latent heat from the environment. In fact, the principle of inductive magnification resides in the mobilization of the latent heat of an environment subject to ambipolar transmission under conditions of its magnification.

The material of these two books on the discovery of the Aether Motor is the subject of three patent applications, only two of which have been filed - and one has now been published [7]. These patents describe further evolution of the active principles of the Aether Motor technology, as well as the employment of passive principles for its embodiment. These are also the topics of the volume that serves as companion to the present one; but let us say here that it should be sufficient to passively couple ambipolar receivers to solar radiation employing the magnified transmission art taught in these pages, to one day provide for all the energy needs of human collectivities.

To take the pioneering technology described in these pages and turn it into an effective alternative energy source will be the next challenge of massfree energy science and engineering, a challenge that it poses to the entirety of human society: for science is not deliverance from ourselves, nor can it deliver us from ourselves. Science only matters if it can grant us new and finer perceptions, and possibilities of a better life; if it can permit human collectivities to create the conditions for Life, for new and more intelligent forms of life.

Aetherometry does not seek a new and final concept, or even ultimate functions - just better concepts or more adequate functions capable of describing and seizing ever more directly the natural event, the world of events; it wants us to think in terms of energy, to have us slowly realize that what matters is not so much to think in terms of concepts as to learn to think in terms of percepts, with percepts, with perceived energy-functions - to learn to “see” the fluxes of energy that are everywhere present in ourselves and our surroundings, that are constitutive of ourselves and our surroundings. Gilles Deleuze and Claire Parnet talked about a science that was beyond axiomatics - “the axiomatics is still an operation of recoding” - a science “that never ceased being delirious” with a system of its own, a consistency all its own, a science of events, rather than one of structure. Aetherometry, the Aether Motor, the Orgone Motor, etc - these are events in a science of events, events that present us with lines of escape both from the central power of official science - with its powerful axiomatic apparatus - and from the perverse logic of the peripheries that mystifies the science and the event, leaving behind only mangled bones.

This work is therefore dedicated to the memory of all those singular souls that sought a science beyond their epoch, their means and even themselves. They alone sought deliverance from themselves, and sometimes found it. Each, as Bergson put it, was a new species or collectivity on its own.

Toronto, May 14th, 2006

REFERENCES

1. Gray, J (2002) “Straw Dogs”, Granta Publications, London, England, p. 119.
2. Idem, p. 120.
3. See, for grim amusement: http://members.dslextreme.com/users/rogermw/Reich/orgone_field_meter.html
4. This grotesque reference is found at James DeMeo’s website, at: http://www.orgonelab.org/bibliogPLAGUE.htm and it is titled:

   “Publications Misrepresenting, Attacking and/or Smearing The Research and/or Person of Wilhelm Reich, his Associates, and Other Scientists who have Openly and Honestly Investigated Reich's Findings.”

   The very title is nothing more than malicious libel. Those who know our work and that of our co-workers know very well we have never attacked Reich, misrepresented him, or attacked honest scientists.

5. Correa, P & Correa, A (1999) "Aetherometric treatment of the energy radiation output by Tesla coils (3): Primary massfree electric-and-magnetic waves, secondary massbound capacito-inductive waves and tertiary electromagnetic waves", Akronos Publishing, Concord, ON, Canada, ABRI monograph AS2-16.
6. Tesla, N (1916) "Responses to Counsel, 1916", in Leland Anderson, ed. "Nikola Tesla - on his Work with Alternating Currents, and their application to Wireless Telegraphy, Telephony and Transmission of Power", 1992, Sun Publishing, Denver, Co.
7. Correa, P & Correa, A (2002)”Energy-conversion system”, USPTO Application # 20060082334, published May 20, 2006.