© CORREA&CORREA, 2001   What is novel about this first volume of Experimental Aetherometry is that it provides, for the first time and with new methodologies, a solid, in- depth study and analysis of the thermal and electroscopic anomalies originally discovered and described by Wilhelm Reich. Both of these anomalies were observed by Reich inside orgone accumulators (ORACs). The thermal anomaly consists in the fact that there is a constant positive temperature difference between the space at the top of the inner metallic layer of an ORAC and the surrounding atmosphere. The electroscopic anomaly consists in the fact that charged electroscopes discharge more slowly inside an ORAC than outside of it. As we came to discover, this slowing down of the electroscopic discharge occurs independently from the polarity of the charged electroscope and often reaches complete arrest of the discharge. Reich's attempted analysis and interpretation limited themselves to establishing a connection between the two anomalies on the basis of the electric interpretation of the electroscope. Postulating that the electroscope received what he termed 'orgone' charges, and was therefore working as an 'orgonoscope', he sought to apply to it his 'OP' (orgonotic potential) method - which effectively was nothing more than the negative of the way one looks at the electroscope, in electrical terms, as a function of neutralizing ion currents. Though it is clear to us now that he did not fully realize the complex physical nature of the electroscopic interaction, he measured the rates of decrease in potential over time, to find that when negatively charged electroscopes are exposed to ORACs, these rates significantly slow down. This suggested to him that whenever the local atmospheric tension is high and the discharge rate decelerates, the deceleration could be understood as the electroscope being less able to discharge its own tension than it would, were the local medium tension low. This guiding thought would have been a very good concept if the spontaneous discharge of the electroscope were solely an electric process. Say, for example, that the 'orgone charges' trapped in the electroscope were negative electric charges, and say, in principle, that they could be either massfree or massbound. If the local medium were an electric medium with a fluctuating local density of charges of the same polarity, then, whenever the density of negative charges in the medium increased, the rate of the spontaneous discharge of a negatively charged electroscope (charged with a definite value Q) would decelerate or slow down. We ourselves have demonstrated that this is precisely what is observed when a negative ion generator is employed in the proximity of a test electroscope that is negatively charged. One might correctly object that this will only be observed if the electroscope case is grounded, since, if it were floating, it would acquire the same charge density as the medium, and thus the same charge Q in the leaf system would not elicit the same degree of deflection. And one should also add that, if the local medium were to have a density of those charges (negative in the present example) high enough to exceed the charge density of the leaf system, then it should charge the electroscope with charge Q'>Q. All these facts are observed in our own experimental studies of the response of electroscopes to negative ion generators, reported in AS2-02 and AS2-06. Leaf deflection in a negatively charged electroscope can be arrested by targeting the leaf system with a stream of negative ions - bringing the fall of potential over time to zero (and thus mimicking discharge arrest), and demonstrating that the electric tension in the surrounding medium (occupied by the electric field of the negative ions) dramatically alters the rate of leaf fall. It would then be easy to imagine a sea of massfree negative charges ('orgone', as opposed to negative ions which are massbound charges) whose varying density affected the observed rate of leaf fall for a negatively charged electroscope. And if the density of this sea increased above the density of the massbound negative charges trapped in the electroscope, then it could even charge it, so to speak, spontaneously. However, the problem with this interpretation is a simple one: if "orgone charges" were monopolar electric charges (which they would have to be for such a model to work at all) - in our example above, negative electric charges - in principle massfree, then if one exposed to the same locality (inside the ORAC) a positively charged electroscope, one should measure not a slowing down of the rate of leaf fall, but the exact opposite, a correlated acceleration in the rate of leaf fall. This, however, is simply not observed. All the arrests of the spontaneous discharge of electroscopes inside ORACs apply indistinctly to negatively AND positively charged electroscopes: the ORAC arrests both leakage of negative charges from the electroscope, AND seepage or influx of negative charges to the electroscope. Accordingly, the electroscopic anomaly observed inside ORACs is not an electric phenomenon, not the consequence of the presence of monopolar charges of one polarity or the other, but a nonelectric anomaly. Reich's analogy with negative electricity is all the more insufficient as he himself claimed that 'orgone charges' were not particles of negative electricity. He was therefore stuck with either a useless duplication of the electric interaction, or the creation of a new type of monopolar charge (as, for example, QED has done with colour and other 'properties' of quarks), a massfree type (and thus unlike ions, which are massbound charge carriers). The contention of AS2-03 is precisely that, with the OP notion, Reich went down the wrong path in his search for a measure of orgone energy, effectively reducing the question of 'orgone tension' or 'orgone charge' density to a mere negative copy of the electric explanation. The electroscope, though commonly accepted among physicists to be a simple, well understood instrument, worthy only of minimal attention during the course of their education, is in fact one of the most provocative and poorly understood instruments available to us in basic natural research. Physicists think of the electroscope as an indicator of ionization - or, if transformed into an electrometer, as a quantitative detector of ionization. But this was not at all the electroscope's originary function - which was the production of electrostatic repulsion by the trapping of a quantum of monopolar charge in the leaf-stem system. Its originary and most basic function was therefore electrical, and it constituted the first available method to determine the polarity of a monopolar electric charge. But because ionizing radiation locally produces pairs of oppositely charged molecules (we could here also use the term electrons or atoms, for the electron is not so much a subatomic or intra-atomic particle as it is the first atom of Matter), the electroscope can be used to detect the presence of this radiation. If there is ion-pair formation occurring in a locality because of the presence of ionizing radiation, then, irrespective of the polarity of the charged state of the electroscope, its charge will be canceled and the speed of the cancellation at a fixed distance will be a measure of radiation, or of the intensity of the field of ionizing radiation to which the electroscope is exposed. Summarily, this is all that is known of the electroscope and, at that, it is known poorly. What most physicists do not realize is that an electroscope is different from an electrometer in one essential aspect - not in the quantitative aspect (one all too often hears it erroneously repeated that the electrometer is a quantitative instrument, whereas the electroscope is not) but rather in the fact that in an electrometer, the potential applied to the leaf-stem system is constantly replenished by a power supply (typically a battery- driven power supply) which keeps the deflection of the leaf constant at a particular value due to the constant feeding of electric charge. This masks, of course, the entirety of the leakage or seepage responses. In an electroscope, however, what one is observing is what a trapped quantum of charge does in the absence of any apparent external replenishment. We say 'apparent' because, as we have just described, there can be parallel types of masking, given that, as we said above, exposure of any charged electroscope to an ion field of the same polarity will also mask the spontaneous discharge response by constantly replenishing the charge of that electroscope. But if we are careful to eliminate these masks, a completely different behavior emerges - a behaviour in response not to electromagnetic or electric fields, but to fields which are neither electromagnetic nor electric, to fields that have the ability to replenish that component of the kinetic energy of the charges trapped in conductors (in this case in the leaf system) which is spent in performing work against local gravity. We did not know of this phenomenon a priori. What we were able to see experimentally was what Reich first accurately observed: that negatively charged electroscopes placed inside orgone accumulators had a much slower rate of leakage than control electroscopes placed outside them. But this discovery alone was insufficient. The effect could still be mechanical - the leakage rate inside the ORAC being slower as a result of the metal walls of the inner Faraday cage shielding the electroscope from background ionizing radiation. That, too, could result in slower leakage rates. What was important for us, then, before even attempting to study the behaviour of the electroscope inside the enclosure, was to study it in the atmosphere, outside the ORAC. Here is where we first began to study the diurnal variation in the rate of leakage. If the sun were predominantly a source of ionizing radiation, we should expect that if there were a diurnal variation, the rate of leakage should be very slow in the early morning, speed up at noon or thereafter as the sun reached zenith, and then slow down towards the night. But what one sees instead is the exact opposite. The sun is not predominantly a source of ionizing radiation. The rate of leakage is fastest at night and slows when the sun appears on the horizon. On days of good weather (in the absence of low pressure systems), it decreases until the sun is at the zenith and for several hours thereafter. During the summer months in particular, or around the time of the summer solstice, leakage from the electroscope may arrest completely. Hence, we certainly cannot say that the effect is due to a mechanical blocking on the part of the accumulators - as, in the course of these observations, the electroscopes were exposed directly to the elements and the sun. The rate of leakage of an electroscope varies diurnally, as influenced by solar radiation which, under ideal conditions, brings the leakage to a complete halt. What is more, we also performed these same atmospheric control studies employing positively charged electroscopes and studying therefore variations in the rate of seepage, something left totally unaddressed by Reich. We found that seepage and leakage rates behaved essentially in the same way, and this underlined the nonelectric, non-monopolar nature of the solar-sourced arrest-inducing radiation. It is clear, therefore, that the electroscope responds to very different energy fields and it is critical for us to finally begin to be able to physically distinguish between them. It responds to electrical fields since it is electrically charged, and therefore it is affected by ionizers or ion fluxes, as we demonstrate in AS2-02. It also responds to electromagnetic ionizing radiation - this is well established and well known, and is the reason why electroscopes were employed by Becquerel, and then by Pierre and Marie Curie, in studies that led to the discovery of radioactivity in the late 19th century. But charged electroscopes can also respond to radiant energy which is neither electric nor electromagnetic. To stubbornly stop at any one of these energy responses is to simply forego seizing other, deeper levels of electroscopic functioning which remain, to this day, hiding in plain sight! In order to understand how the electroscope also responds to nonelectric and nonionizing energy fields, how it employs ambient energy to counteract the work it must perform against gravity in order to conserve charge and its electrokinetic energy, we needed to systematically complete the experimental work of the first volume of Experimental Aetherometry. How did we arrive there? Precisely by coming to realize that this radiant energy which is neither electric nor electromagnetic is not, properly speaking, 'orgone' energy either - once we understood that orgone is an electrically charged, ambipolar massfree form of radiation. Rather, the radiant energy - in the atmosphere or accumulated inside the ORAC - to which the electroscope responds with deceleration of the rate of leaf fall, does not have the characteristics of heat or electromagnetic energy, nor does it have the characteristics of either polarized or ambipolar electric energy. This is critical - for one of the great ruptures of this first volume of Aetherometry is that it obliges any open-minded reader, just as it obliged us while we conducted the experiments detailed there, to realize that both the electroscopic and thermal anomalies discovered by Reich inside ORACs result from the transformation of what has been loosely termed 'latent heat'. 'Latent heat' does not mean electromagnetic energy. It designates a form of energy which is not sensibly thermal, not in electromagnetic form, and not electric. We do not yet demonstrate - at this early stage of our argument - what the direct physical manifestation of this energy is, but instead, as meteorologists do, refer to it simply as 'latent heat', because amongst its properties is its capacity to convert into sensible heat. We are able to demonstrate that it is this conversion of 'latent heat' accumulated inside the ORAC that drives the thermal anomaly. Likewise, it is this accumulation of 'latent heat' inside the ORAC that drives the electroscopic anomaly. One can conceptualize this 'latent heat' as a massfree form of aether energy. Yet, it is also apparent that it is energy bound up to molecular aggregates - and that it is, in a very real sense, the energy responsible for the Van der Waals microatmospheres of molecules, and thus that this massfree latent energy is captured by all forms of massbound charges. Likewise, it is this 'latent heat' which is accumulated and segregated within the ORAC atmosphere. But even if 'latent heat' is an integral part of the Aether, and even if it can be shown to result from that portion of aether energy that one should properly call orgone - as we formally and experimentally show in the second volume of Experimental Aetherometry - and hence that 'latent heat' results from the molecular absorption of orgone, the fact remains that the effect of an ORAC is not directly the effect of orgone, but the direct effect of 'latent heat' as we describe it, and only indirectly an effect of orgone energy. This is an essential conclusion that is worked upon slowly throughout the first two volumes of Experimental Aetherometry. Reich himself had an inkling of this, when he gave the title 'Orgonotic Heat' to one of the sections of his Orgonotic Pulsation essay, yet he reduced the sense of this 'orgone heat' to the sensible heat responsible for the To-T difference, for 'animal heat'. Our conclusion that the electroscopic anomaly within ORACs is driven, not by monopolar electricity or by sensible heat, nor directly by orgone energy, but by a kind of 'orgone latent heat', is a methodological inevitability of the experimental path set out in the first volume of Experimental Aetherometry. Just as in the second volume we were obliged to conclude that what Reich termed 'orgone' is, in actuality, an ambipolar, massfree electrical form of energy, so in the first volume we were forced to conclude that the so-called OR effect of the ORAC is in fact the effect of 'latent heat' - produced in the atmosphere by conversion of orgone energy and trapped inside the ORAC atmosphere. The OR effect of ORACs is only indirectly an orgone effect - precisely through the medium of 'latent heat' and, to a lesser extent, through LFOT photons (optical light and sensible heat). Indeed, the interaction of orgone or ambipolar electric radiation with the atmosphere is not limited to the release of 'latent heat'. It is also the same interaction that generates blackbody photon spectra - one for electrons and one for baryons, beginning with protons. These spectra merge, one with the other, which is why physicists have still not managed to distinguish them as distinct blackbody spectra, but the photon distributions produced are as distinct as a baryon is distinct from a lepton. Their electromagnetic blackbody spectra are also distinct in the atmosphere. In the azure of the blue sky we see the predominant mode of solar massfree electric radiation as it interacts with electrons. Physicists may today refer to this solar mode as THE mode of the solar blackbody spectrum - but it is, in fact, only the main photon mode released from electrons, just as there is a main photon mode released from protons at much lower electromagnetic frequencies. The difference between these photons generated locally by the interaction of solar ambipolar radiation with electrons and various atoms or molecules, and the 'latent heat' trapped in the micro-atmospheres of gas molecules, including electron plasmas, is that photons are local discharges of kinetic energy that assume an electromagnetic fine structure, whereas 'latent heat' is energy accumulated in a nonelectromagnetic form in the microatmosphere of an element of Matter. In the electromagnetic frame, we encounter punctual discharges resulting from the shedding of the kinetic energy of the various atoms of Matter. Aetherometry teaches that this kinetic energy in turn resulted from the absorption of ambipolar electric energy by these atoms. But in 'latent heat' we have a different frame of reference for the interaction with elements of Matter - it is, in fact, more properly speaking, a gravitational frame of reference. It is too early to go into this at the present stage in the publicization of Experimental Aetherometry, since we explain it at great length in Theoretical Aetherometry, but the fact is that where there is Aether energy conformed as Matter, as mass-energy, we will always find a secondary superimposition of energies, of mass-energy with gravitational energy affected to it - which we may call graviton energy. This superimposition of energies - first hinted at by Reich - is what, in fact, obliges aetherometric science to speak of a superimposition of frames of reference: there is an inertial frame nearly perfectly described by Einstein in Special Relativity as the electromagnetic frame of matter, and there is an underlying or superimposed frame of gravitational energy where neither quantization nor frequency spectra obey Planck's rule. When aetherometric science presents a totally new theory of gravitons based upon Reich's Orgonomic Pendulum Law and experiments, it conceptualizes gravitons as massfree aether energy which is constantly affected to a given inertial mass, and which is responsible for the gradient morphology of the usual gravitational field. In other words, gravitons are massfree energy but affected or bound to inert mass or to mass-energy. These gravitons constitute, in fact, the energy units of the local gravitational field that constantly act upon this or that element of Matter such that physicists can take for granted the observed identity of inertial and gravitational masses. Now, Aetherometry contends that the frame of reference of 'latent heat' is precisely gravitational, and not electromagnetic, nor, for that matter, electrical. 'Latent heat' is heat that has disappeared into the microatmospheres of molecules to counteract the local gravitational field (as happens in a steam engine, and is the very reason why it is so wasteful and there is a Carnot limit to it), or 'orgone' radiation that has similarly been absorbed into molecular atmospheres (as regularly happens in atmospheric cloud formation). So, if one wants to speak the more familiar language of physics, one is proposing that the units of this 'latent heat' are, not gravitons, but anti-gravitons referenced to the same frame preferred by gravitons. It follows that one can speak of kinetic energy all one wants, but it is nearly nonsensical if one does not differentiate, both experimentally and theoretically, an electrically configured kinetic energy term referenced to an electric frame, from an electromagnetically configured quantum of energy referenced to a photon-inertial frame, and from a swing of gravitational or antigravitational kinetic energy referenced to a gravitational frame - and has therefore no notion whatsoever of the rules for the superimposition of these frames, of the rules for the equivalences of different types of energy, or of any structural rules for their interconversion. This is what takes us back to the problem of the variation in leakage and seepage rates: the term 'electrostatic' masks a dynamic relation where trapped massbound charges in the conduction band are affected with a quantity of electric energy that constitutes the electrokinetic term those charges intend to preserve; but this electric kinetic energy can only be preserved if these charges are also able to borrow from the local medium some other energy which they can employ to perform work against local gravity - and that means a different kinetic energy term, one that could be designated as antigravitic. This latter term only exists through the mediation of the first, the electrokinetic term, but the two kinetic energy terms remain nonetheless distinct. Likewise with the transformation of ambipolar massfree energy, whether of the OR or DOR types, into either blackbody photons or into 'latent heat': these constitute very different conversions referenced to different frames. Blackbody photons never constitute a kinetic energy term; rather, they are merely a tertiary form of energy, a punctual process whereby energy returns back to the Aether. But when we say this, what we mean is that this energy converts back into, precisely, 'latent heat' - into what, in a gravitational field, escapes precisely its potential - and thus, that this 'massfree latent heat' can exist not just in massbound forms (in molecular microatmospheres) but also in purely massfree states, 'in Space empty of Matter'. Just as in the steam process the disappearing sensible heat - which is, after all, simply electromagnetic energy - converts into 'latent heat', so can the shedding of molecularly bound 'latent heat' generate sensible heat (as every meteorologist knows), or electromagnetic energy in the form of photons. So when we speak about 'latent heat', we really are not speaking about 'heat' at all. This commonly accepted, but very poorly understood expression is, in fact, a misnomer. What we are referring to is, in fact, 'latent' energy, the physical qualities and characteristics of which remain - to current Physics - completely unknown, save for its recognized ability to convert into sensible heat. We only think it is known, for the most direct expression of this energy is found in the agglutination of vapor-phase water molecules as they rise to oppose the gravitational field of the earth, forming clouds and cloud systems in our atmosphere. However, it is called 'heat' because its physical detection in the history of Physics was sourced in the discovery of the steam engine. It is known, of course, that to cause a water molecule to transit from the liquid to the vapor stage and to thereby perform work by its forced escape through a valve, one must put in nearly twelve times more sensible thermal energy than there is sensible thermal energy (W) associated with that water molecule in the vapor phase:      Sensible thermal heat is injected into the system; some of it disappears, ie instead of producing sensible thermal effects, such as effects of volume, pressure and temperature, it apparently 'vanishes'. Yet the energy remains associated with the water molecule in a form which is not electromagnetic or thermal. And, technically, that energy is re-released in the form of sensible heat once the cloud of steam condenses - as happens with rain. The reason, then, why 'latent' energy has been referred to as 'latent heat', is because we know 'latent' energy to be a molecularly-bound phenomenon that can be created by the injection of sensible heat, and to release the same sensible heat upon condensation. But this is not the only way to either create or transform 'latent' energy. The ambipolar massfree electric radiation of stars, such as the sun, interacts with a material substrate (which may be in gaseous or plasma form), to confer to its elements injections of kinetic energy. For as long as this kinetic energy remains trapped in molecular microatmospheres, it takes on the form of 'latent heat'. If it is shed, this very process of discharge gives rise to the production of blackbody photons. The so- called 'orgone effects' of ORACs - both the thermal anomaly and the slowing down of the leakage and seepage rates of electroscopes which are placed inside them - are the direct result of the transformation of 'latent heat' available in the environment and concentrated by the device in its inner chamber. But this injection of 'latent heat', just like the injection of electromagnetic energy within the atmosphere, is ultimately induced by this other form of massfree energy which is electric, but ambipolar - not monopolar. The full spectrum of this massfree ambipolar electric radiant energy, comprising not just orgone but also 'deadly orgone' or DOR energy, will be completely unveiled in the second volume of Experimental Aetherometry. As we explain it there, OR and DOR are the two contiguous elements of the ambipolar massfree spectrum that generate the two contiguous elements, LFOT and HFOT photons, of the blackbody spectrum. There is no way to continue to speak meaningfully, in a physical sense, of 'orgone' today, other than as a segment of ambipolar electric energy. The interaction of orgone energy, defined in this way, with Matter - whether leptonic or baryonic - produces both the electromagnetic blackbody spectra as well as a pool of 'latent heat' affected to the molecular materials - and it is essentially this pool of 'latent heat' that drives both the thermal anomaly and the kinetoregenerative phenomenon. Given this understanding, we can now state that, by using the kinetoregenerative phenomenon of the electroscope, we finally have a means to measure the concentration of this latent energy or 'heat' and to separate its effect from electrical and electromagnetic effects. It is through the agency of the electric interaction that the 'latent heat' interaction becomes visible - indirectly so - just as it was through the same agency that ionizing radiation was once revealed. Were we able to actually place a leaf system in a 'perfect vacuum', isolated from any and all monopolar electric fields or fluxes of ions, from the effect of any ionizing electromagnetic radiation, from any and all light or sensible heat in blackbody spectra - so that we effectively had removed all forms of energy from the vicinity of our contraption - going so far as to even isolate it from the gravitational influence of any mass, no matter how remote, such that we could operationally say that a gravitational field was also absent, our charged leaf system would remain deflected forever, with no need of energy infusion from any source of 'latent heat'. Trapped charge would conserve itself and its own electric energy, what we called the electrokinetic term. But, as we experimentally demonstrate, trapped massbound charges immersed in a gravitational field must also perform work against this field, just as they must constantly regenerate that work, through the agency of the electrokinetic energy term specifying the electrostatic repulsion. In other words, once again all happens as if the trapped charges had two distinct kinetic energy terms superimposed or seated in the same grain of matter - one electric and the other antigravitic, with the latter being mediated by the former and dependent upon the availability of 'latent heat' from the surrounding medium. If the environment is unable to provide any 'latent heat', then the trapped charges begin whittling away their own electrokinetic energy term until it is exhausted and then, in order to conserve themselves as massbound charges (ie in order to conserve their mass-energy), finally fall from the electroscope leaf. The antigravitic work performed by the leaf entails the constant bearing upward of the atoms of the leaf. What we experimentally determined is that there are indeed conditions in which the atmosphere is so 'reluctant' to provide 'latent heat' to the charged electroscope, or, even more to the point, so avid for charge and its kinetic energy, that it is impossible to impart any charge whatsoever to the electroscope - or if one is able to provide an initial charge, the electroscope discharges it in a split second. In this situation, as we rigorously show, when the electrokinetic energy alone of those charges is computed, the deflection 'should' have lasted longer. So, why does this refusal to charge, or this instant discharge, happen? Typically, it occurs in conditions of very high humidity. What is happening, we find, is that atmospheric water vapor - avid as it already is for 'latent heat' - also abstracts the electrokinetic energy and even the charges themselves from the electroscope. On the other hand, on days of stable, bright, sunny weather, the situation is very different indeed. So different that, at times, leakage or seepage may arrest at midday for hours, leaving the leaf stubbornly deflected at the same angle. On these occasions, there is sufficient 'latent' energy or 'latent heat' injected from the environment to the air molecules - and in the absence of substantial quantities of water vapor - for the massbound charges trapped in a conductor to directly abstract this energy from the microatmospheres of the surrounding air molecules. They then shunt this captured energy to counteract the ongoing loss of that component of their work which is engaged in opposing the local gravitational field. For as long as they can regenerate this component, they keep both their electrokinetic energy and their mass- energy intact. They conserve both their charge and their kinetic energy. But the moment the environment ceases to be so rich, and these charges can no longer so readily abstract from it the requisite kinetoregenerative power required to sustain deflection - though they may continue to draw energy from surrounding 'latent heat' - the amount available becomes less than that required to support the antigravitational work. The charges inevitably dip into their electrokinetic energy so as to sustain this work and, in the process, the electric energy trapped in the electroscope decreases. The leaf then begins to fall. In a very real sense, the link between the behaviour of electronic massbound charges and the reproducible thermal anomaly of ORACs is that the thermal anomaly and the gravitokinetic regenerative anomaly are both derivatives of 'latent heat', albeit obtained under different conditions of its conversion. In turn, this 'latent heat', which is demonstrably a massfree, nonelectrical aether energy, agglutinates the molecular elements of matter by forming their energetic microatmospheres and establishing what one euphemistically calls Van der Waals forces. The OR effects of the ORAC, as evidenced by the two anomalies, thermal and electroscopic, are clearly not a direct effect of ambipolar massfree electric energy. They are not directly electrical phenomena. The bridge between the solar orgone radiation and the thermal and electroscopic anomalies inside the ORAC essentially consists of the energy designated, for now, as 'latent heat'.