A systematic review of the author's "S-2 series" aetherometry publications was undertaken (from the www.aetherometry.com web site), with a critical focus upon the evidence offered to support various claims. While many novel ideas and new approaches were discussed, major problems exist in the author's experimental work revealing inadequate measurement procedures, plus at least one significant misrepresentations of orthodox scientific theory. Parts of Wilhelm Reich's work – a major focal point of the aetherometry papers – were also misrepresented.

In the author's replications of Wilhelm Reich's To-T experiment, in spite of claims to have made measurements "around the clock", nearly all the cited experiments failed to display temperature data between the critical hours of midnight and 10 AM or noontime the next day. On the displayed graphs, this problem was glossed over by merely connecting lines between data points, across the times of considerable missing data. Since the time of the missing data is when one should generally anticipate negative To-T measurements in single-layered accumulators (without much insulation) or in bare-metal boxes, such missing data negates the conclusion of a constant positive To-T claimed by the authors. It additionally negates the claim that the author's method constitutes anything especially new, unique or important in the overall To-T discussion. The introduction of temperature measurements within black versus white accumulators, to evaluate for blackbody radiation, was novel and potentially important, but undermined by the same problem of missing data during the crucial nighttime and early AM periods.

In the author's experimental work with the static electroscope, many important questions were raised about the relationship of standard electrical theory to orgone energy and Reich's larger orgonomic theory, and about the role of electroscopes of different electrical polarity. However, the claim that the retardation of discharge rates within orgone accumulators is an affect of electromagnetic photons of different frequencies – suggesting a link with solar-thermal energy – was founded upon an unsupported claim that relative humidity factors in the local environment played no role in electroscopical discharge, and could be ignored. The subsequent interpretation of Lfot and Hfot photons as the underlying mechanism for Reich's orgone and one of its qualitative states, dor energy, rested upon this unproven assumption (of no role for humidity in electroscopical functions) which is opposed by a wealth of classical theory and findings. It also rests upon temperature arguments derived from the above-mentioned experiments with considerable missing data.

The authors also make a criticism of Reich's concept of the "org", but do not recognize that Reich had abandoned that concept and approach later in his research, after the oranur experiment.

The authors also make a host of sweeping dismissive comments against other researchers in the field of experimental orgonomy, appearing to present themselves as the only legitimate scientists who have made valid experiments corroborating Reich. There is a virtual absence of citations to the work of other scientists who have published literally hundreds of papers on the subject of orgone biophysics in the English-language alone, in at least six different journals (three of which were edited by Reich) over the 60 years since Reich first came to America. This absence of citations exists when the Correas make harsh dismissive comments about all that work, as well as when they make claims about scientific issues where the work of others is clearly germane – in this latter context, the author's failure-to-cite makes them appear ignorant of the published literature.

While the authors displayed a sympathy for Wilhelm Reich's work, expressing a desire to rehabilitate him in the eyes of the classical scientific world, they appear committed to doing so only within the context of their own aetherometric theory. They claim to "correct" Reich on various points, which by itself is certainly a legitimate thing to attempt – no scientific work is beyond critical review and rational correction– but this is attempted from the problematic foundations summarized in this document. More irritating, however, is where the Correas take some of Reich's original observations and concepts, and simply reword and present them in new aetherometric terms, as if they were the products of the Correa's aetherometry, rather than of Reich's orgonomy. From all this – the incomplete data, quick dismissals of valid classical concepts, misrepresentations of Reich's findings, etc. – the authors conclude their aetherometry is a more scientifically valid and superior understanding of Nature and Reich's discoveries, than what Reich developed in his original orgonomy. The result is a net diminishment of Reich, who is presented as both genius and incompetent, his work finally "corrected" of claimed "errors" and assumed oversights, and vigorously "swept clean" of his problematic long-time supporters and defenders , whose work is dismissed with an arrogant contempt, and no explicit critique. Only the Correas, then, remain to correctly inform us about Reich. Reich's revolutionary orgonomy is thereby filtered down and absorbed into a flawed and more narrow, theoretically top-heavy "aetherometry".

It is the recommendation of this reviewer, that all the disparaging statements be removed from the S-2 and subsequent publications, or alternatively be restated in a highly explicit manner with names and citations so everyone will know exactly what, and about whom the authors are being critical. Personal disparagement has no place in scientific discussions, and the presence of those sentences – along with the absence of exacting citations – reduces parts of the Correa's work to the level of a political commentary. The missing experimental data should be supplied by new experimental evaluations, or openly acknowledged with the conclusions drawn from those incomplete data identified as conditional and speculative, rather than definitive (as now is the case). Reich's work also should be more precisely articulated and cited, so as to remove the present confusions between his work, observations and findings, and those of the Correas. It is certainly legitimate for the Correas to attempt a broader experimental and theoretical review of Reich's findings, and even to try and cast off what they believe to be irrelevant or erroneous aspects – but to be successful in this effort, they have a very high standard to meet, which in fact has not been met in their aetherometry publications. The Correas have validated several of Reich's original findings, and they raise some important questions and offer unique ways of re-evaluating several of Reich's experimental findings. However, their experimental work has by no means provided any advancement beyond Reich's understandings, nor provided supporting proof beyond the basic confirmations of his various supporters over the decades since his death, nor supplanted his orgonomic theory.

++++++++++

Regarding S2-01: Basic Electroscopical Functions.

The paper begins with a new way to "relate the energy content of a potential difference... in the form of work performed over time against gravity by the repulsion of charges trapped in a conductor." It is a fascinating way to look at the problem, in separating the functions of "charge gas" -- the "cloud" of charged particles which collect around the conductors of the electroscope (ES), giving rise to its repulsion -- and the energy expended by this same charge gas to oppose the force of gravitation, which is constantly working to pull the deflected leaf of the electroscope downward. In this context, the authors claim to have proven an electroscope requires some outside energy source to keep its leave deflected over time, as compared to the amount of energy initially supplied.

The author's postulate of an "antigravitational" force at work in the electroscope appears as a parallel concept to Reich's original discussions on the ES as being responsive to orgonotic influences, which was partly based on his observations of ES discharge-rate inhibition within orgone accumulators. However, the substitution of the mysterious force of gravity, in my view, provides no added clarity or insights into the problem as compared to Reich's discussions on orgonotic charge, or orgone tension. The mathematical validation of the basically mysterious nature of the electroscope is, however, a new approach to the matter.

The authors present ES calibration methodology, and variations of ES discharge rate variations are given, for sunny and snowy days. Reich's work on the Orgonomic Pendulum Law is also brought into discussion, with a final calculation that the mass-antigravitational energy output of the charged ES is 228 times greater than the raw electrical charges input. However, the calculations are based upon the original assumption of an antigravitation function which has not yet been established. No proof as such is presented in this one paper to demonstrate the author's postulated antigravitation function, at least in a manner that is any more specific than the very general theoretical indications which flow from Reich's orgonomy (ie, the general tenets of cosmic superimposition). Simple charge-repulsion theory as per the classical viewpoint also appears quite valid, at this early part of the discussion where the orgone accumulator is not addressed.

For example, a simple insulated metal plate, or an electroscope which has the deflection-leaf removed, can still be charged, and still exhibit a weather-dependent discharge rate, without any work being expended against gravitation per se. The "Charged Plate Monitor" instrument is based upon such a principle, and much of classical electrostatic theory relies upon measuring apparatus other than the electroscope. I have an older electrostatic voltmeter in my lab which deflects a needle horizontally, rather than vertically, and therefore would not be subject to gravitational effects -- though the spring-action of the indicator needle might be equated with a gravitation function, in which case the work expended would be against the spring in this example. While this does suggest some ways to experimentally test the relationship between ES discharge and gravitation, the point is, we can legitimately speak about the totality of ES discharge-rates (whatever the sources) completely independent of deflected leaves or postulated gravitation functions. Gravitation clearly is at work in a standard electroscope, where the needle or leaf is being pulled downward in opposition to the "charged cloud" -- but can it be established, for example, that an electrostatically-charged conductor of similar surface area which does not have any leaf indicator will retain its charge for a substantially longer period under similar conditions? If this could be established, the authors would have a powerful support for the assumption that the force inhibiting discharge is "antigravitic" in nature.

For what it is worth, my own investigations into the ES, from the standpoint of classical meteorology, suggests the cloud of charges around the electroscope are "trapped" by a "skin effect" of some sort, which governs their slow dissipation in a manner analogous to the way the water droplets inside clouds can be slowly (or rapidly) dissipated away into the surrounding open sky. When the "skin effect" of the atmosphere is strong, clouds will grow. When weak, clouds dissipate or do not form at all. This term, "skin effect" comes from classical meteorology, which (at least in the 1960s and 70s) acknowledged that thermodynamically-calculated rates of expected mixing of drier cloud-free air into saturated 100% RH clouds simply does not happen appreciably, and so there must be some force acting like a "skin" to provide a "membrane" around the clouds, to keep them together. There is no classical understanding of just what "skin effect" means -- but from the viewpoint of orgonomy, it is an expression of the water-attracting, self-attracting orgone charge within the cloud. The same theoretical approach might be applied to the electroscope, based upon the observation that ES discharge rate is slowed in an accumulator, and speeded by a dor-buster. In this context, the observation of "resistance against dissipation" is also functionally related to gravitation (it always occurs within a gravitational field, or in some respects, is the gravitational field (as with gravity holding the earth's atmosphere in place, another kind of "charged cloud"), but my impression is the authors are not making an argument such as this. If so, they will have to explain it in clearer terms.

By itself, S2-01 provides an excellent theoretical discussion on the inherent anomalous nature of the electroscope, but this is founded upon the examination only of electroscopes which yield a measurement by virtue of charge working against gravitational forces. It is understood, however, that this paper is primarily providing the groundwork for later discussions and proofs.

Regarding S2-02, on Electroscopical Orgonometry:

The electroscope calibration sections, comparing encased and open, negative and positive-charged electroscopes, grounded and ungrounded, are excellent. I have not seen such material published before, but do know some of this kind of study has been undertaken by others (for example, myself) with roughly similar but not identical empirical observations. Using a Kolbe-type electroscope with metal case (open on two sides with glass panels) I have observed grounding does affect discharge rate (slowing it by around 20%) and it may be, the effects of grounding are variable according to local geography and weather (earth-electrical potential) at the time the experiments are undertaken, and might also be affected by gross "earth-currents" detected in more recent years, which are substantial in some areas, and minimal in others.

On p.16, Figure 11 graph shows two days of ES measurements -- the second day of measurements clearly shows a problem which I will bring up again later, of the absence of significant measurements for a period of around 10 hours in the AM. Some of the more simple and direct conclusions from these data -- that cloud cover and increased RH correlate with an increased ES discharge rate -- is not under question, but other conclusions given later on are affected by the absence of morning data. I merely point it out here, as the graphs are sufficiently expanded on this figure to show the problem in a clear way.

On p.21, the authors challenge the causality of RH in the ES discharge rates: "Therefore the spontaneous discharge parameter V/h is parallel to and covariant with the %RH parameter. We take care in making this statement and avoiding any suggestion of causation, since it is a commonly held opinion that it is the variation in relative humidity which provokes the variation in spontaneous electroscopical discharge." Much emphasis is placed upon imprecise diurnal variations in both RH and ES parameters, "that complete arrest of leakage or seepage rates... occurs either before or coincidentally with the driest ambient air [with]... no absolute correlation between the values of %RH at which arrest occurs and the occurrence of the arrest itself. This evidently indicates that the variation in electroscopical discharge is not caused by the variation in the relative humidity, but is covariant with it as a function of a still unknown atmospheric parameter or set of parameters." While I also am convinced there are other parameters besides RH which affect electroscopes, the author's conclusion suggests no major or even minor role of RH, and on this I would strongly disagree.

Regarding the ES data which is referenced for this conclusion, it is not taken at sufficiently precise intervals over the entire course of the day, nor of any sufficient number of days, nor even taken at the same times of the graphed RH data, as to make any such discussion of causality, or lack thereof, highly premature. I would suggest to re-draft Figures 17B and 18B as two-way plots showing only RH and ES parameters, as the time-of-day parameter is too unsystematic, with too many missing data, to give the 3-way scatter-plot the legitimacy and significance the authors impart to it. What kind of RH meter did they use to make these measurements, and why were they not coordinated with the times when the ES discharge rates were made? Why does there appear to be more RH data than ES data?

Regarding the author's observation that the trend of the RH data in Fig.18C is fairly flat, but the regression line of ES data in Fig.18D and 18E are slowly progressing upwards, I note their ES data for those extended periods is rather sparse, with only a few data points per day, and some days with no apparent data points -- it therefore would be valid to compare their ES data only with similar days and times of measurements for the RH data. It might be, if they undertook this revision of the RH data, to plot on the graphs only those RH measurements which were very close to the times of the ES measurements, that the differences in the regression lines would not be so extreme. Did they use an electronic humidity recorder at their lab for these measurements, and was it placed in the same location as where the ES measurements were taken?

Perhaps I am missing something, but the author's appear to suggest, if one is to enclose an electroscope inside an enclosed aquarium, and mechanically increase the humidity inside (by introduction of wet rags, etc.) but keep temperature stable, that this would not affect the discharge rate. Have they performed such a control experiment for RH? Because if not, based upon what is presented so far, their rejection of the classical model relating RH to ES discharge rates is unfounded. I am no advocate of the strict classical meteorological model, but I don't believe one can be successful in reforming that model, or introducing a new model, without a more rigorous addressing of RH and water parameters. Humidity is such an all-encompassing parameter which ties back with orgonotic thermal and evaporative phase-change anomalies (when RH is measured by dry-bulb versus wet-bulb), and with atmospheric electrical parameters (when RH is measured by electronic devices based upon conductivity-resistivity) -- consider the roles here of electrostatics related to cloud droplet size, surface tension parameters and humidity, and one will find a set of natural phenomenon where all of these parameters join together. The affect of orgone energy appears, from my thinking, precisely at this conjunction of parameters, and of course it is routinely applied in the cloudbusting work. When I look at their Figures 20A & 20B, it seems to be a fairly straightforward temperature-humidity relationship. The variance from the mean observed in Fig.20B might well be the product of variations in absolute humidity for different air masses during the period of measurement.

On page 29, the authors state "it is most likely the conversion of solar energy into atmospheric thermal energy that drives humidity upwards [in altitude?] in the atmosphere, and is therefore responsible for the dryness of the outdoor air coinciding with the highest ambient temperature." In fact, humidity is never "driven upward" in a manner that significantly lowers RH at the surface, except as contrasted against an atmospheric inversion, where both heat and moisture get trapped close to the surface. The dryness of air at the hottest time of day is considered to be a straightforward mechanical result, of temperature driving %RH lower, even while there is a constant absolute humidity. Consequently, any linkage observed between solar energy and ES parameters is most clearly linked to the RH-lowering effect. To claim that diurnal effects of ES discharge are the consequence of solar factors (other than temperature-humidity effects) demands a precise controlling of RH, and that hasn't been done.

The Pressure-Temperature-Humidity graphs on p.32-33, Fig.22C & 22D shows a relationship, well enough, though the problem of missing morning data is apparent --the curves would likely cross in a dramatic manner if those data had been added, as the lowest temperatures and highest humidities would be just before dawn, assuming no introduction of a new air mass with different properties. Likewise, they are attributing great significance to pressure-cell parameters related to ES discharge, for which I cannot see any causality involved. The pressure readings would depend largely how close one was geographically to the center of nearby high or low pressure vortices, which would by themselves have definable (but variable) temperature, humidity and cloud parameters. If one were a hundred miles to the east or west of the current measuring location, the peaks and valleys of the pressure curve might shift to the right or left on the graph by several hours, without appreciable affect upon local temperature or humidity factors -- absolute humidity and the "mixing ratio" (grams of moisture per kilogram of air) remains fairly constant over broad areas dominated by a given air mass, irrespective of temperature, while pressure can vary greatly. One could thereby have similar ES discharge patterns over a large geographic region which would have fairly large pressure and temperature changes. So I cannot see the significance of this argument. My thinking is still bothered by the above-mentioned problem with RH, and so these added steps seem only to compound the problem.

The above critical points would also provide a fairly simple understanding for similar data variance scatter-plotted on Figs.23 through 28. During the cloudbusting work, I often look for a shift from data points low on a temperature-RH plot towards data higher up on the curve, as an indication of an absolute increase in moisture. And with the change in air mass, sometimes anomalously ahead of it, comes major changes in pressure, wind direction, cloud patterns, electrical potential and ES discharge rates. As a general rule, weather forecasters pay scant attention to temperatures on the weather map as having much causality, because it is less predictive for future weather changes than other factors such as jet stream locations, pressure centers, and humidity.

On p.42, as a preface to "Hidden atmospheric variables of solar origin", the authors state that ES discharge rates share various correlations with temperature, humidity, and pressure, but assert "This correlation is not causal". I would agree that temperature and pressure are not causal, but that humidity is causal (though not exclusively so), as per my points above. However, by dismissing these variables, the authors derive the conclusion that there must be another hidden variable of solar origin. I would agree that Reich's concepts of orgonotic tension and orgonotic lumination are possible candidates here, as both appear to have a solar correlation as well, but my impression is the authors do not have these concepts in mind. The discussion of solar protons, relativistic electrons, solar x-rays and flares is interesting, and in some ways mirror studies by others on the mechanism of solar-terrestrial phenomena. However, for those solar phenomenon which affect the entire earth in total, as with their figures comparing solar x-rays to weather events and ES measurements at their laboratory, the causality being argue cannot be true, because it implies that all places on earth should experience similar effects simultaneously, which is never going to be the case. When there is high pressure, dry and warm weather in the Toronto region, with one reaction at the electroscope, other places will assuredly be low-pressure, wet and cold with an opposite electroscopical reaction, all during the same epochs of solar variance. It is true that big solar flares can "oranurize" the entire planetary energy system -- we have seen that happen the last several years alone during the peak of the sunspot cycle, with global pressure cell variances temporarily being exaggerated to extremes as a consequence (heat waves and storm intensities both increasing, as the energy becomes highly excited) -- and perhaps a long-term study of ES discharge rates would show a reaction to this during both high-pressure dry and low-pressure wet conditions. But is oranur what the authors are referring to? I don't believe so, as they don't ever say it. Their claim, as I understand it, is for a common solar factor which specifically drives both pressure and temperatures higher, and both humidity and ES discharge rates lower. This is not proven by their data, however, and remains speculative.

The ionizer experiments are interesting, but do not resolve the above problems. As an aside, the basics of small air-ion theory are reliant upon basic measuring techniques nearly identical to Reich's ES discharge-rate methods. Other instrumentation is now used (such as the charged plate monitor, or voltmeter-based "ion meters"), but are based upon the same general principles, of a slow discharge from a charged conductor, or measurement of the floating potential of a conductor. Like the field of electrostatics, air-ion research is littered with anomalistic findings. I feel a strong argument can be made to view "small air ions" as the product of orgonotic charge (not the same, but merely a secondary mass-bound expression).

Regarding S2-03: On Reich's Concept of an Electroscopic OP.

In a manner, this entire paper is founded upon a misunderstanding of Reich's views. Yes, Reich discussed the orgonotic potential in some specific mathematical terms in The Cancer Biopathy. But in later years, after the Oranur Experiment, he realized that orgone energy possessed properties which were far more powerful and dynamic than his early views suggested. To quote Reich:

Reich spoke to this issue at other points in his work, but this quote should suffice for the moment. Having personally experienced oranur phenomenon at different times during my experimental work, at levels much lower than what Reich experienced (I have never seen the atmosphere glowing blue, like Cherenkov radiation, as Reich did), I can only give a general affirmation of these facts. I often use a temperature analogy to contrast orgone energy under normal background and accumulator-concentrated conditions, as compared to oranur conditions:

Normal conditions feel like a warm summer day.
Accumulator conditions feel like a hot day at the beach.
Oranur conditions feel like a conflagration, as from a forest fire.

Reich had no idea of this "conflagration" type of orgonotic condition when making his careful ES measurements in the early part of his work. After seeing what was possible with oranur, his viewpoint shifted entirely, and the careful measuring of ES discharge as an indicator of a "quantity" of orgone was given up in favor of a more generalized formulation. Not only did oranur reveal the capacity of the orgone to rapidly change its intensity and raw concentration (or "density"), but to "seethe" or "boil" as it were, while also precipitating material substances out of itself. The DOR condition came as a consequence of prolonged oranur. The point is, the flux of energy inside the accumulator could increase, possibly by several orders of magnitude (ie, Krx magnitudes?) very quickly, in a manner totally unrelated to anything seen during ordinary meteorological variations, and this phenomenon wreaked havoc with living systems, with the weather, and with his instruments. At some point the math will come, but not at the cost of redefining (or discarding?) the raw empirical foundations for which terms like orgonotic potential and orgone tension are empirically precise descriptors.

This being the case, I don't see any point to making a detailed critique of Reich's self-discarded methodology as given in Cancer Biopathy. I support the author's attempt to better understand the relationships between orgone charge and electrical charge, but don't see they have done much better here than Reich originally did.

Regarding S2-04: Electroscopic Demonstration of Reverse Potentials of Energy Flow

Citations are only given for Barth and Mann, who are not classically-trained scientists, nor experts on the subject of Reich's experiments . The papers by Rosenblum, Cleveland, Wengel, Baker, Geister & Wyneken, Konia, and Burlingame all present more details and substantive discussions based upon experiments with electroscopes and accumulators, but none are mentioned here. Why only Barth and Mann? For the record, my own unpublished work suggests some relationship between orgone energy and electronegativity, but I simply mention it here. The authors clearly feel orgone energy cannot be electronegative in basic nature (or apparently even to yield electronegative charges under high concentrations) and they make some good points in this direction. However, they also don't review the various orgonotic phenomena which led Reich to his viewpoints, and lead me to defend them.

On p.16, it says "the human body cannot electrically charge an electroscope". However, I do have a dim memory of Reich observing this during the oranur experiment (I'd have to read through his work again to double-check this.) However, I've seen this happen on several occasions. The most dramatic was after absorbing an extreme charge of orgone energy from the cloudbuster, during field work under thunderstorm conditions in Kansas, when the atmosphere was highly charged around the apparatus. I was incautious, and stood too close to the apparatus for too long, and absorbed a strong charge which made me sick for some days (this is called "oranur sickness" by those familiar with Reich's later work, an occupational hazard of the cloudbusting work which yields symptoms akin to mild radiation sickness). Initially my skin was reddened and my total organism had the feeling of "bursting". I had large "hives" develop in about 24 hours, as if I had walked into a patch of poison ivy. Early in the process, I felt highly expansive, as if I could run and fly through the air, filled with boundless expansive energy (a dangerous sign, as I know today). However, on the first evening, I was able to touch electroscopes and have them swing to full deflection, and similarly to cause flashes of neon bulbs by merely walking nearby! Touching objects would sometimes create sparks, but it was impossible to "discharge" the phenomenon -- the reader will have to accept my assertion, that many attempts were made to "ground out" this capacity, by going barefoot, touching grounded plumbing, etc., without success. Only 24 hours later, by soaking for a long time in a tub of water, did the effect vanish. I've never seen such a starkly clear expression of this phenomenon before or since, though on occasion have seen electroscopes fail to discharge when being touched (arguably, this might have a classical explanation), and also seen a slightly-charged electroscope spontaneously increase its deflection by charging inside an orgone accumulator (this would not have a classical explanation). Likewise, by orgone-charging high-vacuum tubes (what Reich called VACOR tubes) they can exhibit a glow by the mere stroking with the hand. The glow occurs, even when the body is fully grounded, or wired to the two electrodes in the tube ends, or if those electrodes are shorted or grounded to the accumulator, or to earth ground, or whatever. In this example, the tube carried the high charge. Normal electrical theory breaks down entirely under such examples, and it becomes very clear, that the electroscope and vacuum phenomenon react to some life-energetic parameter which is not purely electrical in nature, but which elicits reactions which are typically seen during experiments when high voltage electricity is provided. So, the authors are correct to say the phenomenon "cannot be construed as being electric", but incorrect to reject some general relationship between orgone energy and electrical charge.

On p.22, the authors argue "that poles can be defined not by a physical property of opposing polarities, but as a relationship between different densities of the same charge ". This is clearly one of the theoretical explanations, that electronegative polarity constitutes a higher quantity of the same phenomenon which, in lower quantities is called "electropositivity". This agrees with some elements of classical theory, which speaks about only electrons being mobile, moving through wires, while "positive charge" is simply an expression for a lowered quantity of electronegativity. On the millivoltmeter, I've grown accustomed to viewing the electronegative swings as an indication of higher orgonotic charge, with the positive swings occurring when those same charges are removed from the apparatus, with the "zero" point somewhat arbitrarily linked to the charge value of the earth-ground. For years, I have been teaching this very formulary as one theoretical understanding, an albeit incompletely-understood but nevertheless functional equivalence of orgone energy to what is called "electronegativity", or the "electron" (which, by the way, remains a very mysterious entity by itself). But this comes directly from Reich's early work in bioelectricity, from his descriptions on the functioning of the millivoltmeter specifically, and the general functional equivalence between orgonotic charge and bioelectrical charge. Yes, this model raises questions which ultimately need resolution, and the authors have pointed out some of those issues quite clearly -- but this theoretical model also explains quite a lot by itself. I am pleased to note, the authors share my skepticism of the photoelectric effect, described as the consequence of mobile "electron holes".

On p.26, in point #2, I think the authors assume a bit too much about what Reich knew, or did not know. All we can do is reference his published papers, but it would be too ambitious to assume Reich had not undertaken experiments with positively-charged electroscopes. As before, the terms "hidden local variable sourced in the ambient medium" and "electrokineoregenerative phenomenon" are still being used as conceptual substitutes for orgone tension or orgone energy. And as before, my objection is, such terms have not so far been proven to hold any greater explanatory power than Reich's original terms. If, by the end of the day, all we have is a theoretical reformulation with term-substitution, then nothing new has been added.

Regarding S2-05: The Thermal Anomaly in ORACS

One major problem affecting nearly all of the temperature measurements related in this document is, the times of measurement are often unsystematic, at different times for different days, and more seriously, fail to record any data at all from approximately midnight to 10 AM or noontime for most or all of the days in question. Data points are inappropriately connected together across periods spanning ten hours or more, giving a false impression of significance to parts of the graph where factually nobody knows what the outcome might have been. Figures 1A, 1B and 1C recording indoor temperature variations for six days in February all show this problem, which is serious if one considers the potential issue of thermal lag. One expects to see a positive To-T from thermal lag alone in the period from around noontime through late into the PM or early AM -- and this is, indeed, what is generally seen. However, during the early morning hours, when environmental temperatures begin to rise following dawn, thermal lag would produce a negative To-T. To refute the classical thermodynamic expectation, one would have to show a measured positive To-T at precisely those times, in the early daytime morning, before noon. Figs. 1A,B and C show variations in the control thermometer of around 1 deg. C., with To-T of around 0.1 to 0.2 deg. C. This is such a small quantity, that it is easily imaginable that thermal lag in the morning hours might have developed into a negative To-T -- but we will never know, as no measurements were taken at that critical time. Other graphs in the paper, based upon those same raw February data, show similar problems, which in my view undermines their significance considerably.

Figures 2A to 2D present data for a similar experimental arrangement, as performed outdoors, under a double-layered canvas cover, for 19 days in July. It does appear that there are fewer data points, or measurements, having been made in a given day , and also that many of the days appear to start data-taking near the center-line of the daily record, suggesting a noontime start of data recording, with a midnight cessation of data recording. In any case, particularly in Fig.2D, there is a suggestion, that many of the midnight measurements are very close to a zero To-T. One could ask, if data was taken at 2 AM or 4 AM on those same days, if the To-T would then have further declined and been negative? The temperature ranges in this case were 10-15 deg. C., with daily variations in To-T of 5 deg. C. or more. In reviewing the significance of these data, the authors state (p.29) "while the metal box rapidly cools and therefore approaches the control temperature as the night sets in, it heats up much, much faster and more intensely than either the ORAC or the wooden box when the atmosphere is being heated by the sun." I agree with the author's contention, that this is precisely the effect one looks for when making a To-T measurement. However, this is also an admission that the temperatures move towards a zero To-T "as the night sets in" (by midnight), and suggests a negative To-T must have occurred in many cases, had measurements been taken. Fig.4B shows this most clearly, as does Fig.7A.

I make these criticisms as a sympathizer to Reich's position on the matter -- I just do not believe the classical expectation has been overcome in this case. In all likelihood, if the morning measurements had been made, probably the indoor measurements would have been positive for most all of the 24 hours (including at night), but probably not the outdoor experiments, which might have plunged to a clear negative To-T in the early AM hours. Most assuredly, if this paper attracts the attention of classical physicists, they will spot this very problem, and dismiss the entire matter out of hand, without any consideration of a possible positive effect in the data.

The author's next step I find to be most fascinating, and it constitutes a really novel and positive contribution to the question of thermal orgonometry, which is the use of black and white colored accumulators, directly exposed to the sun, with the approach to evaluate the black-body characteristics of the two accumulators. However, in these experiments once again we are confronted with the problem of no data for the late PM and early AM hours. In fact, Figures 9 through 19 all start with data recorded at around 10:30 or 11:00 AM, and end around 21:00 hours, or 9:00 PM, with no data from that point onwards, except for a single measurement at 2 AM. Nevertheless, they show several anomalous characteristics in the thermal dynamics of black and while colored accumulators, as compared to an ordinary metal box and to normal air temperature. Much more might have been learned, however, if the measurements had been taken during the night and early morning periods. Figs 20 to 23 display this same data, attempting to make a meaningful discussion of the "diurnal variation" in the temperature curves, but with so much missing data, diurnal variations cannot be adequately identified or understood. As I would anticipate, however, the 2 AM measurements all show expected temperature reversals and negative To-T from probable thermal lag. Is it possible, that with this promising methodology, purely ordinary temperature lag effects overwhelmed the expected orgonotic effect?

There also is another problematic feature probably at work in the outdoor experiments, and that is incident solar thermal infra-red radiation, which can penetrate through layers of canvas and even through the exterior top layers of a sun-exposed accumulator, which basically is a metal box surrounded by insulation. As mentioned in a prior communication with the authors:

This issue, of thermal IR coming from the sun, would be a factor at work in any outdoor To-T experiment which is undertaken under only light shading materials (such as canvas), or even under a roof-like structure which does not have IR-reflecting or absorbing characteristics. My own preferred arrangement, now the subject of renewed experimental investigation (stimulated by the author's papers in discussion), is to set up an open-air but fully shaded structure, under a dense forest canopy. Or, alternatively, as the authors have done, within an indoor environment. In both cases, however, environmental temperature fluctuations must be minimal, so as to reduce mechanical thermal lag to a minimum, and allow the orgonotic heating effect to appear and be measurable.

The paper closes with discussions about the implications of the various temperature curves, with comparisons of oracs in the full sun versus those in the "shade" (but which, as I discuss, are likely exposed to penetrating solar IR). Given the problems mentioned above, I consider such a theoretical discussion -- at least one so decisive in its claims -- to be premature.

Regarding S2-06: Variation in the Discharge Rate of Electroscopes in the ORAC.

It is stated (p.14) that "the ultimate source of energy drawn from the atmosphere by the ORAC devices is the sun", a conclusion drawn from prior papers, but which I have shown above is unwarranted and not supported by the data.

More ES discharge rate data is presented on Fig.2, p.15, selected from a series of measurements previously given in S2-02, which show the absence of late PM and early AM data, as previously discussed. This problem is compounded moreso in the present paper, as the data claim to compare the discharge rates of positively and negatively electroscopes -- but the data points do not match up at the same times (some are not even close, without a matching pair for hours), and considerable daily variation is seen in the graphs, making the absence of data for long periods all the more of a problem. A similar problem exists for Fig.3A and 3B, from which I cannot see anything of substance to be drawing conclusions about. This, in addition to the problem of ignoring the effects of humidity.

Figure 4 presents a better data set, with matching pairs of data (though no data in the mornings), and does show an ES discharge anomaly which cannot be explained by either temperature or humidity. Why wasn't this approach taken from the very start? Figure 6A also is better in this regard, as is 6B and 6C. A clear ES discharge rate anomaly is present, though it would be difficult from these data alone to clearly draw conclusions about whether the black or white orac produce any clear or systematic differences from each other. There simply aren't enough measurements being taken over the course of the day, and what is measured shows such a large variance, that the curves appear to go in and out of correlation over time. All I see here is, there is an ES discharge rate anomaly, with a general slowing down of the discharge rates inside both accumulators, which is not directly related to temperature or humidity.

Other graphs continue to present data with similar characteristic problems, and with a final conclusion that they have proven that "the effect is nonelectric". I don't see it. The problem areas in the graphs stand out much more significantly than the claimed proofs. The author's contention that the major factor causing a slow-down in the ES discharge rate is "the energetic influx of solar radiation" also remains unproven, and as shown above is based upon an incomplete addressing of the effects of temperature upon humidity, which clearly can affect ES discharge.

Other problems appear in the graphs on p.37-38, Figs.19 & 20, where comparisons are made between control, black and white accumulator ES discharge rates. The problem is, there are unequal numbers of data points, suggesting more data were taken for one of the groups. Fig.20 shows approximately 62 control, 80 black and 34 white orac data points, a significant difference which suggests the white orac was not being measured on some days, or times of day. If those missing days were characterized by slightly differing air masses, with different atmospheric humidities, then comparisons between the curves would lose validity. Figs.23A, 23B, 24A, 24B, 25A and 25B, all show this problem of unequal data sets. How did this come about, and what were the weather conditions that prevailed over the period of both existing and missing data?

The discussion section of this paper makes an important point, on p.57, that orgone energy cannot be a simple substitution for negative electricity. However, I don't believe anyone has made such a claim. It is possible that orgone bears an as-yet undefined relationship to electronegativity, in a manner which can cause millivoltmeters and electroscopes to react "electronegatively" when charged by organisms. It is a question that requires experimental clarification, to be sure. But the authors have not firmly secured their own conclusions . They have validated Reich, in the sense of showing ES discharge rate anomalies in the accumulator, but they have prematurely overlooked the problem of humidity, both relative and absolute.

The authors conclude with a discussion on the possible relationships of orgone energy to a wavelength spectrum encompassing IR, visible and near-UV light, with DOR being related to wavelengths shorter than around 320 nm. The authors assert they are not engaging in a reductionism here, that OR and DOR are not merely those EM spectra by themselves, but the discussion lacks clarity on this point, and appears to be founded upon the same problematic data discussed above. OR and DOR have many differing expressions in nature, including a difference in luminosity of the local atmosphere . However, the link between DOR and oranur, its source, is not discussed, nor are their biological expressions. Nor is there discussion of what Reich called orgonotic lumination, a phenomenon which occurs under excited states for the localized production of light, and it is Reich who firstly observed different qualities of luminating "emission spectra" for these different states.

I cannot ever recall reading anything which suggests "with respect to SR and the Michelson-Morley experiment, Reich felt that his theory of orgone energy, like SR, also required a negative outcome of the latter". (p.72) This idea has, to my knowledge, no support whatsoever. Reich did state, I believe in Ether, God and Devil, that the discarding of ether was (I paraphrase, from memory): "a premature discarding of a useful theory". In fact, he viewed orgone energy as a direct validation of the older concept of "ether", which was far too static for his beliefs. And I have show, how this static vision of the ether led to the eventual rejection, by Einstein and the world of classical physics, of Dayton Miller's exceptional work on that subject. If Reich had been aware of Miller's work, and how Miller had been defeated politically, he probably would have developed a different view of Einstein.

On p.75-76, the authors provide a clear statement of a problem to be resolved, of the exacting relationship of orgone energy to electricity. The authors are honest to admit "we are not in a position to yet prove or disprove the adequacy of the solution proposed by this model". I think, we are all still at the point of seeking answers on this problem.

S2-07: Decoding the Thermal and Nonthermal Equivalents of the Org

This paper builds upon previously-presented materials, and thereby threatens to elevate potential problems to an even more critical level. It revisits the issue of the org, which as I discuss above, was a concept abandoned by Reich later in his work, after the oranur experiment. The paper also repeats the assertion of a solar-energy influence upon the electroscope, for which proper controls against mechanical humidity factors have not been undertaken. And also, presentations of conclusions derived from black-versus-white orac ES discharge rates are premature, until the questions raised above can firstly be cleared up -- namely, the reasons for unequal numbers of measurements (more black-orac data than white-orac data), humidity factors, and the weather changes over the period of study.

Also:

Point #4, on page 4, relates experiments on ES discharge in a dry incubator. An incubator with moisture added, kept at essentially the same temperature would surely yield a radically different discharge rate.

Point #5, on page 4, does not address the issue of penetrating solar IR, which can warm the top metal plate of an accumulator. This element of control has not been put into place by the authors.

Point #7 - excellent!

This paper suggests to me, a rather static view of orgone energy functions in the accumulator. The "fire" or "boiling" of OR energy from oranur is basically ignored .

Regarding S2-08: Photoinduced Arrest of Electroscopic Discharge: Hallwacks

This paper presents materials (on Hallwacks) which I did not know about, and further elaborates on the theoretical side of aetherometry. However, I would challenge the interpretations given for the schematic on p.36. OR and DOR are not "two qualitative modes of the aether". Orgone is the functional equal for ether. They are one and the same, except orgone is a broader concept which encompasses biological and meteorological phenomena as well. Another functional schematic can be developed, showing orgone as the CFP for the two variants, oranur and dor. The presented ideas on LFOT and HFOT photons is interesting, but remains speculative, and does sound rather reductionistic and mechanistic. If something new is obtained from this procedure, then it might find an independent validation, but such is not the case (as presented in this paper).

Regarding S2-09: The Allotropic Cycle of Oxygen, Ozone & Water: Aetherochemistry

This is a good addition to Reich's original pre-atomic chemistry, very insightful, though I strongly object to some of the statements made. I address this below.

Regarding Term-Substitution, the Lack of Clear Citations to Reich's Priority, and Unnecessary Dismissive Commentary

The authors need to hear this, privately in a direct but friendly manner, as otherwise they'll eventually get it publicly from a harsher critic, in a far more embarrassing and destructive manner. There are many places in their papers where new aetherometric terms are substituted for Reich's terms as given in orgonomic theory, but they rarely clarify that the source-concepts originated with Reich. Those parts of the papers need to be changed, with appropriate citations added. Also, their anger about some "Reichians" is so intensive, that they insert needlessly harsh comments which are highly over-generalized to appear directed towards anyone who retains a strong adherence to Reich's original orgonomy. Specifically:

* In S2-02, on p.2, 3, 38, 60, 61, 86 & 87 are found the authors own verbal descriptions of natural phenomena which are identical in nature to Reich's well-described orgonotic potential, but where it is not openly acknowledged as such. In one case (p.29) the phenomenon is described, but identified as "a process heretofore unknown", which isn't correct. One can disagree with Reich's overall theory, but factually he was the first to put together all the various details which are getting so much discussion in the S2 series. Specifically, at many points the author's theoretical discussions appear to be basic repetitions of Reich's ideas, but using more classical terms. The sentences on p.2, on "the capacity or ability of cloud systems, particularly those associated with low pressure cells, to draw nonelectric energy from neighbouring localities and thus diminish the kinetoregenerative power of the medium local to the instrument", and on p.61 "we have suggested that the energy which we have shown the medium can provide to the charges trapped in the electroscope in the form of the kinetic energy they spend to perform the work of lifting the leaf against local gravity, is the same energy which cloud systems draw from the ground-level atmosphere", are clearly taken from Reich's earlier concepts and discussions. The terms are different, but the details -- of the orgone energy continuum possessing a negative entropy, a solar-excitation-lumination function, an oranur-excitability function, and cloud-forming and energy-drawing functions -- these are all Reich's. The only acknowledgement I can find about this is on the very last page (p.88) suggesting the authors feel they have provided a better theoretical understanding of those basic principles and observations.

* In S2-03, the author's use of the terms "nonelectric power of the local medium" will perhaps be more acceptable to the classically-trained theorist, but basically is a euphemism for the more "offensive" (and more accurate) term: orgone energy. Also, I do not agree with the statements, as given on p.2, that orgonotic potential is ambiguous, but it may be true that certain aspects of classical electroscopical theory remain unresolved within its contexts -- no less so than classical electroscopical theory is itself challenged by Reich's experimental observations. I do not feel every question needs to be firmly answered all at once, but rather feel it is important not to throw overboard useful concepts simply because open questions remain. In this context, the authors have not yet made a strong case for doing so. Also, on p.3, it is stated "These definitions [orgonotic potential, orgone tension, etc.] have stood impervious to any understanding by scientists, roundly discarded as they were to the ash can of history". The sentence firstly implies that there are no scientists who find the concepts understandable, which is false. There are many scientists who have been working with Reich's ideas and concepts for years, comfortably applying the larger body of theory developed by Reich without problem or difficulty. Secondly, it is important to note, that Reich was never attacked on the basis of his experimental work in orgone physics. That body of work was factually never experimentally evaluated in any genuine manner by his critics. Historical review (as in Greenfield's book Wilhelm Reich Versus the USA, or Martin's book WR & the Cold War) shows his critics hated him for his early rejection of Stalinism (they were closeted Stalinists themselves), or for his penetrating discussions on human sexuality, or for his biological healing work with the accumulator.

* In S2-04, on p.26, in point #2, I think the authors assume a bit too much about what Reich knew, or did not know. All we can do is reference his published papers, but it would be too ambitious to assume Reich had not undertaken experiments with positively-charged electroscopes. As before, the terms "hidden local variable sourced in the ambient medium" and "electrokineoregenerative phenomenon" are used as apparent substitutes for orgone tension or orgone energy. And as before, my objection is, such terms have not so far been proven to hold any greater explanatory power than Reich's original terms, and their use appears solely for supporting the aetherometry theory. If, by the end of the day, all we have is a theoretical reformulation with term-substitution, then what's the point?

* In S2-05, the authors incautiously sweep aside virtually every independent reproduction of To-T previously undertaken during or since Reich's time. This includes published studies by Ritter, Howell, Starz, Shelton, Blasband, Rosenblum, Konia, Mann (G.), Seiler, and Harman. The authors consider it all unworthy of mention: "Yes, a few private individuals have made claims of reproducibility or irreproducibility, but none of these so-called studies have had the substance that is needed to qualify their results as anything more than anecdotal. The fact is that the authors of the present study do not know of any reproduction of Reich's findings with the ORAC that deserves reference here, save that which Reich himself relates in several of his writings on the subject."(p.3) and "So, in over 4 decades there has been no irrefutable demonstration that Reich was either right or wrong in his observations."(p.4) These kinds of statements, one would expect to preface an extremely robust study which itself was indisputable in its results, in which all the major elements of the phenomenon were addressed, both the orgone-energetic and classical thermodynamic requirements. Unfortunately, the author's own papers on To-T in this S2 series fail to rise to a level of significance any higher than those which are belittled and dismissed.

* In S2-06, more of Reich's ideas are presented, on p.16, but are identified as the author's hypotheses, rather than Reich's: "The hypothesis we shall propose in this paper, consistent with what we have discussed previously, is that these peaks [in ES discharge rates]... are due to the drawing action of clouds themselves -- which removes so much energy from the ground-level environment that the latter is unable to replenish the kinetic energy of charge trapped in conductors that is being spent performing work against gravity."(p.16) This is a simple re-wording of Reich's discovery of the orgonotic potential, at work in clouds. It is a long observed and published fact, that cloud cover lowers the orgonotic charge of the local ground-level environment, by drawing energy into itself, into the clouds, where the higher charge is to be found. The phrase "kinetic energy of charge trapped in conductors that is being spent performing work against gravity" is also a parallel conceptual re-phrasing of Reich's orgone energy, using terms of aetherometric theory -- but it is never simply and clearly stated as such. And as discussed above in my S2-01 commentary, it is not clear at all that a purely "antigravitational" function needs be present. On p.24, the authors repeat Reich's finding as their own: "The answer is precisely what proves our contention of the ability of cloud systems to draw energy" and again on p.32 "These observations reinforce our notion that different cloud systems exert a draw pressure, a kind of 'suction pressure' effect upon the energy of the surrounding medium, specifically drawing off energy from the ground and objects close to it." Simply, this is Reich's discovery of the orgonotic potential, which the authors previously criticized and dismissed. His theoretical premises surely can be subject to critique, but he must be given due credit for the original empirical observations and general concepts.

* In S2-08, there are unsupported claims that, following the oranur experiment, "Reich would be forced to revise his entire theory of a dynamic Aether, by introducing into the latter a secondary nature in the form of a dualism between "orgone energy" (OR) and its antipode "deadly orgone energy" (DOR). This dramatic alteration to the theoretical model he had been pursuing for over a decade would wreak chaos with the understanding of Reich's followers, plunging them into yet more outrageous mysticism."(p.4) These comments are themselves rather outrageous, and indeed, confused. Firstly, Reich rarely used the term "dynamic aether" or "ether" at all, except to decry the abandonment of a useful concept by classical physics. There also was no dualism in Reich's ideas or writings, but such does appear to exist in the minds of the author's conception of Reich's discovery. The accusation of "outrageous mysticism" is serious enough as to demand the authors be explicit about it, or stop making vague attacks -- in fact, it would appear the effort to render Reich's broad and interdisciplinary functional theory of life-energy, down into some mathematical abstraction, is itself a big push towards mystical thinking, the very kind of mechanistic-mystical split Reich wrote extensively about, and which currently is a plague upon humankind. And who, specifically, is referred to in the claim about "most of his followers abusively held[ideas] - uselessly duplicating the electrical disjunction between negative and positive electricity..."(p.4) Nothing specific is mentioned to support this assertion -- no names, and no citations -- and even if such a citation could be found, what is the meaning of the word "abusively"? Why the attacks on people, if the work is at issue?

* In S2-08 the authors statements "All light is formed by the local production of photons..." (p.32) "AtoS proposes that all light is produced locally in the form of quanta or photons" (p.35) are concepts derived from Reich's writings on the nature of light, but is not acknowledged as such. The subsequent statements on p.35, about "Reich showed how unsure he was about the nature of both light and the orgone, and their relation", are unsupported opinions. Factually, the authors own views on "local production of light" are erected like drapery on the foundations and scaffolding of Reich's explicit empirical discussion on this same phenomenon -- but Reich is not mentioned. The failure to properly credit Reich, or to properly present his views, is appalling here. I hope the authors were simply being incautious, in a rush to publish.

* In S2-09, Wilhelm Reich's ideas are needlessly diminished, with his concepts being captured into the author's own theoretical framework, as if the concepts were their own discoveries, which is not factual. There is a chronic absence of clear acknowledgement of Reich as the central originator for the entire pre-atomic chemical formulary the authors are working with. This tends to diminish what genuine contributions they have to make, at least among those who have read Reich's works with care, and who know about his papers on pre-atomic chemistry, cosmic superimposition and so forth. Also, the irrational smashing down of Reich's followers continues: On P.3, the authors state "Most commentators or followers of Reich have either discarded the DOR part of his argument and discoveries, or reduced the OR/DOR distinction into a useless duplication of the disjunction between negative and positive electricities." I don't know of anyone following Reich's work who falls into either category. Can they cite any proof for this assertion?

* In S2-09, the ending conclusion appears to bring the authors full circle, where they validate a concept which previously, for theoretical reasons, was rejected. On. P.17, they write "Reich might well have discovered how electronic charges arise from the superimposition of aether energy units, but what we shall next propose, and for which we alone are responsible, constitutes our own discovery or rediscovery of this process of condensation of charge by 'secondary superimposition'." And, on p.24, they state "...the injection of OR aether energy implies generation of negatronic charges by secondary superimposition of aether energy units" Such statements, following others where the authors are highly critical of Reich and his followers for maintaining some speculations about connections between orgone energy and electronegative charges, sound highly contradictory. The impression is, they reject the theoretical base provided in Reich's concepts of orgone tension and orgonotic potential, but capture the empirical foundations of those concepts into aetherometry, misrepresented as something altogether new, as if it was their own independent invention. Surely, this all demands a more careful clarification.

Click here to return to Correa-Critique Summary page.

James DeMeo's books are found in most on-line bookstores, and his publications lists, with many downloadable PDFs, are available here:
http://www.orgonelab.org/demeopubs.htm
Or from ResearchGate:
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/James_DeMeo/