|
Future Energy eNews September 24, 2003 Integrity Research Institute |
1) Cold Fusion Isn't Dead -
Wall Street Journal analyzes the details and outcome of a decade of research.2) FirstEnergy 550 MW Generator was East Coast Blackout Culprit
- Politics now prevent official acknowledgement, reparation.3) Republicans Want to Control New Energy Bill
- but omit automobile mileage, global warming, hydropower and other energy sources.4) Reduce the Need for 1300 Power Plants to only 170
- Practical response to largest blackout in N. American history.5) Pulsed Electricity:
Opportunities for Wirelss Transmission and Bioelectrotherapy - Seminars at November's IRI 2003 energy conference.
|
1) Cold Fusion Isn't Dead, It's Just Withering From Scientific Neglect Sharon Begley, Wall Street Journal, Science Journal, Sept. 5, 2003 http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB106270936017252700,00.html |
|||
|
"Well, we're here," said physicist Peter Hagelstein to the 150 scientists at the 10th International Conference on Cold Fusion in Cambridge, Mass., last week. "Many people in the scientific community feel we should be shot." That, actually, would be a big step up for the beleaguered community of cold fusioneers. It has been 14 years since two little-known electrochemists announced, at an infamous news conference on March 23, 1989, what sounded like the biggest physics breakthrough since Enrico Fermi produced a nuclear chain reaction on a squash court in Chicago. Using a tabletop setup, Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann, of the University of Utah, said they had induced deuterium nuclei to fuse inside metal electrodes, producing measurable quantities of heat. (Deuterium, a.k.a. heavy hydrogen, has one proton and one neutron in its nucleus.) Although nuclear fusion is supposed to be impossible at temperatures much below those in the sun or a hydrogen bomb, the Utah duo said they had managed the feat at room temperature. That was the opening bell for one of the craziest periods in science. Cold fusion, if real, promised to solve the world's energy problems forever. (There is enough deuterium in seawater to provide electricity for millennia). Scientists around the world dropped what they were doing to try to replicate the astounding claim. Some did, most didn't. When a U.S. Department of Energy investigation concluded in November 1989 that cold fusion was a mirage born of bungled measurements and wishful thinking, the field became a pariah. Yet the cold fusioneers persist. In paper after paper last week, scientists reported that when a metal, usually palladium, absorbs huge amounts of deuterium into its atomic lattice, the result is more heat than plain old electrochemistry can explain, as well as particles thought to be by-products of nuclear fusion. Some of the most extensive work has been at the Naval Research Laboratory, whose scientists found both excess heat and a telltale sign of fusion, particles of helium-4, in dozens of experiments. And Michael McKubre of SRI International, Menlo Park, Calif., is still, after hundreds of thousands of experiment-hours and $4 million, getting more heat from his cold-fusion cells than can be explained conventionally. Some of the most intriguing research is by physicist Steven Jones of Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah. Several years before Prof. Pons and Prof. Fleischmann, he reported low-temperature nuclear fusion, but virtually no excess heat. That made his cold fusion a big fizzle as an energy source, but much more acceptable to science. "The question I get more than any other is, 'Are you still doing this?', " says Prof. Jones. "The answer is yes, and what we are seeing is very difficult to explain outside of cold fusion. The repeatability of these experiments now approaches 80%." Although he still detects no excess heat, the telltale signs of nuclear fusion "make us conclude that we are seeing new physics." Although the persistence of the cold fusioneers makes skeptics shake their heads, proponents see it differently. "If there were no effects and it were just experimental error," says Prof. Hagelstein, associate professor of electrical engineering and computer science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, "we would have figured that out by now. I don't think there is any doubt about the existence of nuclear anomalies. Excess heat might be real, too." Right about here, I would cite physicists explaining why Prof. Hagelstein is wrong. But I can't. Almost no scientist outside the ostracized community listens to its claims anymore, much less critiques them. It has been years since a major physics journal published a paper on cold fusion. Prof. Hagelstein invited some of the original critics to last week's meeting; none showed. Cold fusion today is a prime example of pathological science, but not because its adherents are delusional. Yes, it's disconcerting that many of the experiments inexplicably and unpredictably stop (and start) producing heat. But the real pathology is the breakdown of the normal channels of scientific communication, with no scientists outside the tight-knit cold-fusion tribe bothering to scrutinize its claims. "If you 'know' that cold fusion is impossible, then you don't have to pay attention to these results," says Prof. Hagelstein, an award-winning DOE physicist before being ostracized for his work in the theory of cold fusion. "The initial criticism was that people needed to do the [heat measurements] right, but now that some groups have spent millions of dollars doing just that, the critics still won't read the papers." I, for one, would love to hear smart physicists explain why the excess heat from the deuterium-filled palladium reflects not nuclear fusion but the release of mechanical energy -- sort of like letting go of a stretched spring. I'd love to see a smart critique of a 2002 paper by Japanese scientists, published in a Japanese physics journal that few American scientists saw, describing (shades of medieval alchemists) the transmutation of elements through cold fusion. What these claims need is critical scrutiny by skeptics. That's how science normally functions. But in cold fusion, it isn't. And that's the worst pathology of all. • e-mail: sciencejournal@wsj.com |
|||
|
Hyperlinks in this Article: (1) sciencejournal@wsj.com |
|||
CorpWatch.org - Issues - Utility Deregulation - Articles
By Tyson Slocum, Special to CorpWatch, August 21, 2003
An Ohio-based energy conglomerate has been identified as responsible
for the massive power blackout that shut down much of the Midwest and
Northeast -- but the Bush administration isn't taking notice.
FirstEnergy's strong ties to the president may help explain why the
company may be let off the hook for depriving millions of power
during the blackout.
Top executives at FirstEnergy rank among the Bush campaign's top
fundraisers. FirstEnergy President Anthony Alexander was a Bush
Pioneer in 2000 - meaning he raised at least $100,000 - and then
served on the Energy Department transition team. H. Peter Burg, the
company's CEO and chairman of the board, hosted a June event that
raised more than half a million dollars for Bush-Cheney '04.
FirstEnergy at Fault
The immediate cause of the largest blackout in U.S. history is being
traced to FirstEnergy, the Akron, Ohio, energy giant that is a
product of the merger of seven utilities: Toledo Edison, Cleveland
Electric, Ohio Edison, Pennsylvania Power, Pennsylvania Electric,
Metropolitan Edison and Jersey Central Power & Light.
On Aug. 14, FirstEnergy's 550-megawatt, coal-fired Eastlake power
plant in Ohio stopped running at 2 p.m. In response, FirstEnergy
began to pull roughly 20 percent of its load of electricity out of
Michigan to meet its needs. This transfer overloaded several
transmission lines, causing them to trip. Non-FirstEnergy plants in
Ontario, Canada, began supplying energy to the underpowered Michigan
market, which then led to overload on those transmission lines. This
movement of power in Canada deprived New York of power it had relied
on, which led to the blackouts there.
Why Bush Won't Blame FirstEnergy
Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham, discussing the administration's
plans for addressing the blackout, told CBS's Face the Nation that
consumers should be responsible for paying the $50 billion he claims
is needed to upgrade the transmission system. Abraham added:
"Rate-payers, obviously, will pay the bill because they're the ones
who benefit."
Missing from the Bush administration's solution is corporate
America's culpability. Since FirstEnergy started the problem, why
shouldn't the company be held responsible?
The reason FirstEnergy may be getting a free pass is because the
company enjoys a close relationship with President Bush. On June 30,
FirstEnergy CEO and Chairman of the Board H. Peter Burg hosted a
fundraiser with Vice President Dick Cheney near the company's
headquarters that raised $600,000 for the Bush-Cheney re-election
campaign. Held at the Hilton in Akron's upscale Fairlawn
neighborhood, attendees ponied up $1,000 to eat shrimp and hear
Cheney speak. For an additional $1,000, they could get their picture
taken with the vice president.
Anthony J. Alexander, FirstEnergy's president and chief operating
officer, is a 2000 Pioneer - meaning he raised at least $100,000 for
the Bush-Cheney campaign. He was also part of the Republican National
Committee's Team 100, raising $250,000 for the GOP in 2000. Alexander
personally gave another $100,000 to fund Bush-Cheney inauguration
festivities. When Bush took office, Alexander was included on the
Energy Department's transition team.
FirstEnergy's PAC and its top executives are the sixth-largest
contributors from the electric utility industry, giving more than $1
million to federal candidates in 2001-2002 alone, with 70 percent of
the money going to Republicans. The company gave an additional
$168,000 to Ohio state candidates over the same period (with
three-quarters going to Republicans).
FirstEnergy wields enormous lobbying influence in Congress as well.
The company spent nearly $3.8 million lobbying Congress and the Bush
administration in 2001-2002 alone.
FirstEnergy's Woes
Triggering the blackout is only the latest of FirstEnergy's
struggles. In early August, FirstEnergy announced it had to lower its
profits from 2000-2002 and the first quarter of 2003. The financial
restatement reduced earnings per share by nearly 11 percent in 2002
alone. In addition, the restatement will result in lower earnings
through 2005. The accounting problems stem from permissive policies
by FirstEnergy's longtime accountant, Arthur Andersen. In response, a
class action lawsuit has been filed by Milberg Weiss, accusing
FirstEnergy of using "accounting improprieties" by inflating its
profits.
FirstEnergy also has been cited for negligent management of the
company's Davis-Besse nuclear reactor, located at the west end of
Lake Erie, near Toledo, Ohio. The commercial power reactor remains
shut down to this day, adding no power to the grid but remaining a
constant risk to the surrounding region as another potential accident
or terrorist target.
In 2001, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission inspected some of the
nation's 69 Pressurized Water Reactors (PWRs), of which Davis-Besse
is one. FirstEnergy successfully pushed the NRC for a postponement of
inspections at Davis-Besse until mid-February 2002. That March,
workers repairing a cracked mechanism at the top of the reactor
discovered a football-sized cavity where boric acid had corroded
through the reactor head. The corrosion was the result of the
cracking and leaking that have been found in many of the PWR nuclear
reactors (and was the reason why the NRC wanted to inspect all of the
PWRs). Had the boric acid eaten through a final half-inch of metal, a
loss-of-coolant would have occurred-creating the kind of incident
that could lead to a meltdown of the reactor.
Since the discovery, the plant has remained shuttered, and
FirstEnergy admitted in a report to the NRC that it had prioritized
electricity "production over safety." The NRC's evaluation of
FirstEnergy indicated a "lack of safety culture" at the company.
FirstEnergy, Deregulation and the Bush Administration
FirstEnergy may have been the spur of the power outage, but
deregulation deserves the overall blame. The Bush administration
pursued a policy of energy deregulation long before the August
blackout, and now that policy has come back to haunt us.
Bush's energy deregulation is making America vulnerable for two
reasons. First, America's transmission system was designed to
accommodate local electricity markets, not the large, freewheeling
trading of electricity and movement of power over long distances
under deregulation. Sending power over a much wider area strains a
transmission system designed to serve local utilities. That's why
state regulators in the Midwest warned FirstEnergy and other
utilities months ago that the transmission network was vulnerable to
a blackout. But these concerns were ignored by these energy
corporations.
Second, state-based deregulation means utilities are no longer
required to reinvest ratepayer money back into the transmission
system, as deregulation replaced that orderly planning with reliance
on "the market." But the market has been unwilling to make the
necessary investments in transmission. In particular, the market has
not functioned properly as loopholes were punched in the Public
Utility Holding Company Act (PUHCA) over the past decade.
PUHCA, slated for full repeal by the Republicans in both the House
and Senate energy bills, is the last federal regulation that requires
giant energy companies to disclose crucial financial details and
limits the types of non-electricity investments they may make. If
PUHCA is repealed, a wave of mergers will likely result, leaving a
handful of companies (like Southern Co., ExxonMobil and FirstEnergy)
in control of our electricity - with no effective regulators looking
over their shoulders.
In the case of the August blackouts, the deregulated wholesale
markets of the Midwest and Northeast - typically cited as models for
national deregulation by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission -
failed in their ability to provide reliable and affordable power. As
a result, wholesale prices remain higher than under regulation, and
nearly 96 percent of the 40 million residential consumers in the
remaining 15 deregulated states lack access to competitive
electricity suppliers.
This is the world of energy the Bush administration and its financial
supporters envisioned. Of course, no one wanted a regional blackout.
But no one was there to prevent it, either.
Can Bush Administration Investigation of Energy Company Wrongdoing be
Trusted?
Spencer Abraham announced this week that the Department of Energy
would take the lead on investigating the cause of the blackout. This
is the same Bush Administration that, two years after the fact, has
yet to charge Enron's Ken Lay or Jeff Skilling with a single crime or
freeze a penny of assets for their role in helping to steal $70
billion from California consumers. Since FirstEnergy's top brass is
as financially connected to Bush as Enron ever was, the public needs
proof that the Administration can undertake an impartial
investigation. That's why Public Citizen is asking that
Vice-President Cheney release all documents relating to his 2001
energy task force so the American people can be sure that the
Secretary of Energy and other Bush Administration officials are not
compromised during the course of their investigation.
Tyson Slocum is the Research Director at Public Citizen's Critical
Mass Energy and Environment Program,
See also:
By CARL HULSE,
New York Times, September 6, 2003 http://ea.nytimes.com/cgi-bin/email?REFURI=http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/06/politics/06CONG.html&position=WASHINGTON, Sept. 6 — Congressional negotiations on a broad new energy policy began today with Republican leaders serving notice that they intended to write much of the proposal.
Senator Pete V. Domenici, Republican of New Mexico, will be chairman of the discussions, which gained new prominence after the blackout on Aug. 14. Mr. Domenici said that he and Representative Billy Tauzin of Louisiana, who is chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, would draft recommendations and submit them for consideration and that he wanted to avoid a repetition of the failed talks last year.
"There were too many multiday meetings, too many offers and counteroffers, instead of conferees and the staff simply sitting down, rolling up our sleeves and working it out," Mr. Domenici said after gaveling the meeting to order.
He added that he had had "many conversations with Chairman Tauzin, and I believe there are no issues on which the two of us cannot reach agreement."
The prospect of perhaps just one other conference meeting to consider a plan written mainly out of sight immediately alarmed Democratic participants. They said they were worried that they would be cut out of shaping a measure that will touch on nearly every aspect of energy supply.
"There is a grave danger in pursuing a course in which important work is conducted behind closed doors with limited and unknown participants and the appearance of partisanship," said Representative John D. Dingell of Michigan, senior Democrat on the House energy committee.
Senator Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico, the senior Democrat on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee who was co-chairman of the talks last year, when Democrats held the Senate majority, said it would be unfortunate if the lawmakers abandoned the approach of open negotiations.
"People are going to want to know what we are doing in this bill to prevent future blackouts and future problems," Mr. Bingaman said.
Mr. Tauzin said that much of the work was done last year and that he and Mr. Domenici could build on those agreements to reach a deal before the end of the month.
"About 70 percent of the work is already done," Mr. Tauzin said. "It is just a matter of signing the papers. We are just two votes away from giving this nation some energy security for a change."
Mr. Tauzin acknowledged that a handful of major obstacles remained to a compromise.
Coming to terms will not be easy despite his cordial relationship with Mr. Domenici.
Foremost among the obstacles is a push by President Bush and House Republicans to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling. The Senate has rejected that plan, and Mr. Domenici has said he will not include the drilling in a final proposal unless he is certain he has the 60 votes to overcome a filibuster.
Although the blackout has led to a consensus that the power industry should be subject to mandatory reliability rules, the House and Senate differ on how far to go in trying to create new transmission organizations or use government authority to obtain land for new transmission lines. In addition to the electricity provisions, there are conflicts over a variety of issues like standards on automobile mileage, global warming, hydropower and other energy sources.
Citing those disputes, Democrats led by Mr. Dingell have been pressing to separate the electricity provisions from the rest of the bill and quickly move them forward. Republicans oppose that plan.
"This is not a time to do piecemeal work on putting together a bill," said the House majority leader, Representative Tom DeLay of Texas.
Mr. Tauzin said lawmakers advocating breaking up the bill did not want a major energy measure to pass. He said they should worry about repercussions.
"Anybody who stands in the way of this one ought to get burned in the next election cycle," he said.
The conference committee is a large group, with 45 House members and 13 senators.
The Bush administration's energy plan makes a strong argument for investment in new energy supply infrastructure. The most commonly-used factoid in this argument in the Department of Energy's projected need for 1300 new power plants by the year 2020 (at an average size of 300 Megawatts). Vice President Cheney has repeated this number to the point that it begins to sound like a regulatory requirement rather than a forecast from a computer model.
Let's examine the facts behind the 1300-power-plant argument. DOE's forecast is based on the Energy Information Administration's Annual Energy Outlook, which uses a macroeconomic model called the National Energy Modeling System. But NEMS, like all models, can miss the mark. For example, in 1999 NEMS predicted no increases in natural gas prices. The 1300-power plant forecast would drop dramatically if it used these inputs:
Since our electricity industry is producing 300 plants over the next two years, it is reasonable to assume that another 170 can be brought on line over the following eighteen. Many of those could be renewable-energy plants, producing little or no pollution.
Realizing the energy efficiency gains, especially the 380 power plants from new and existing buildings, will take a concerted effort, involving increased R&D funding, aggressive support for building codes, new federal tax credits, and public benefits funding from electricity sales to support state-based efficiency programs.
Foot notes:
1.
U.S. Department of Energy. Energy Information Administration. Report#:DOE/EIA-0383(2001). December 22, 2000.2. Standard & Poor's. "
Other States Not Likely To Repeat California Power Drama." January 2001.3. Appliance Standards Awareness Project. "
Overall Savings from Federal Appliance and Equipment Efficiency Standards." .pdf document.4. Appliance Standards Awareness Project. "
The Cost of Rolling Back the AC Standard."5. Appliance Standards Awareness Project.
Opportunity Knocks. March 2000.6. Alliance to Save Energy staff analysis based on: Arasteh, Dariush, and Prindle, William. Energy Savings and Pollution Prevention Benefits of Solar Heat Gain Standards in the International Energy Conservation Code. Alliance to Save Energy, 2001.
7. Alliance to Save Energy staff analysis based on: Interlaboratory Working Group. 2000. Scenarios for a Clean Energy Future (Oak Ridge, TN; Oak Ridge National Laboratory and Berkeley, CA; Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory), ORNL/CON-476 and LBNL-44029, November.
8. Steven Nadel, Fred Gordon, and Chris Neme. Using Targeted Energy Efficiency Programs To Reduce Peak Electrical Demand And Address Electric System Reliability Problems. American Council for an Energy-Efficiency Economy, November 2000.
Back to List5) Pulsed Electrical Energy Provides Two Opportunities: Wireless Transmission and Electrotherapeutic Healing
Thomas Valone, Integrity Research Institute, Sept. 24, 2003 http://users.erols.com/iri/tesla.htm
(Longer historical variations accepted for 2003 publication in 6 magazines*)
Earth's Ionosphere and Magnetosphere Energy Boost for Wireless Broadband RF Transmission
Unknown to most electrical engineers, Nikola Tesla’s dream answers the energy crisis worldwide, saves electrical conversion losses, and provides a real alternative to transmission lines. Former professor of electrical engineering at the University of West Virginia, Dr. James Corum, explains Tesla’s magnifying transmitter, which was originally compared to a telescope. Corum points out that "the tuned circuit of his magnifying transmitter was the whole earth-ionosphere cavity resonator." This fact helps explain why Tesla stated, "When there is no receiver there is no energy consumption anywhere. When the receiver is put on, it draws power. That is the exact opposite of the Hertz-wave system...radiating all the time whether the energy is received or not." Thus, Nikola Tesla’s futuristic transmission of power, source dissipation will only be experienced when a load is engaged in a tuned receiver somewhere on the earth. This fact alone represents a major leap forward in electrical transmission efficiency, even one hundred years after its invention.
Dr. Elizabeth Rauscher, former professor of nuclear and astrophysics at the University of Nevada, has experimentally measured the earth's oscillatory waves called "Schumann cavity micropulsations." She maintains that the earth’s magnetosphere is a potential source of electrical energy, as Tesla emphasized. Rauscher points out that relatively small longitudinal impulses, which a Tesla Tower could supply, theoretically can trigger earth-ionosphere oscillations to take place so resonant receivers can tap the earth’s atmospheric electrical energy, with a magnetosphere boost. Tesla estimated the available energy of the earth-ionosphere cavity at 7.5 gigawatts. Dr. Rauscher today shows that it is closer to 3 terawatts (3 billion kW) with the magnetosphere included in the calculations, while the US only consumes about 425 million kW (425 GW) today for electrical needs (at 27% of the world usage, based on DOE-EIA data). Therefore, the earth about twice the capacity available for electrical consumption than the entire world presently utilizes everyday.
Why wasn’t the prototype of Wardenclyffe finished in 1903? Tesla offered this visionary conclusion: "The world was not prepared for it. It was too far ahead of time. But the same laws will prevail in the end and make it a triumphal success… Let the future tell the truth and evaluate each one according to their work and accomplishments. The present is theirs; the future, for which I really worked, is mine."
Some suggest that Tesla was not practical about his 187-foot Wardenclyffe Tower on Long Island in 1903. Research by the experts actually shows the opposite. Tesla was very practical and more than a century ahead of his contemporaries. Nikola Tesla's discovery of pulsed propagation of energy does not resemble the standard transverse electromagnetic waves so familiar to electrical engineers everywhere. Many engineers and physicists have dismissed Tesla's wireless energy transmission as unscientific without examining the unusual characteristics and benefits of longitudinal waves. In recognition of the Centennial of the Wardenclyffe Tower (1903-2003), the First Nikola Tesla Energy Science Conference & Exposition (Nov. 8-9, 2003) will offer a one-day seminar, explaining Tesla's superior energy transmission discovery to the public.
The book, Harnessing the Wheelwork of Nature: Tesla's Science of Energy, by Thomas Valone (Adventures Unlimited Press, 2002), contains several papers from prominent physicists, including those cited above, detailing the unusual method of pulsing a huge broadband Tesla coil at a repetition rate of 7.5 Hz to resonate with the Earth's Schumann cavity. Dr. Corum explains, in one of his papers in the book (p. 198) entitled, "Tesla & the Magnifying Transmitter: A Popular Study for Engineers," that a mechanical analog of the lumped circuit Tesla coil is an easier model for engineers to understand. From mechanical engineering, the "magnifying factor" can be successfully applied to such a circuit. "The circuit is limited only by the circuit resistance. At resonance, the current through the circuit rises until the voltage across the resistance is equal to the source voltage. This circuit was a source of deep frustration to Edison because voltmeter readings taken around the loop did not obey Kirchoff's laws!" As a result, Edison claimed such a circuit was only good for electrocution chairs.
"All that is necessary," says Corum, is that his transmitter power and carrier frequency be capable of round-the-world propagation." In fact, Tesla (in Dec., 1904 L.A. Times) stated, "With my transmitter I actually sent electrical vibrations around the world and received them again, and I then went on to develop my machinery."
The power loss experienced by this pulsed, electrostatic discharge mode of propagation was less than 5% over 25,000 miles. Path losses are 0.25 dB/Mm at 10 Hz (p. 151), which often is difficult for engineers to believe, who are used to transverse waves, a resistive medium, and line-of-sight propagation modes. The capacitive dome of the Wardenclyffe Tower is a key to the understanding of the longitudinal waves. Dr. Rauscher quotes Tesla (p. 236), "Later he compared it to a Van de Graaff generator. He also explained the purpose of Wardenclyffe...'one does not need to be an expert to understand that a device of this kind is not a producer of electricity like a dynamo, but merely a receiver or collector with amplifying qualities.'"
A seminar on wireless electricity, including broadband RF and microwave space solar energy transmission, will be held on the first day of the First Nikola Tesla Energy Conference, on November 8, 2003, at the Sheraton College Park, in the Washington DC area. In recognition of the Wardenclyffe Tower Centennial (1903-2003), Integrity Research Institute is proud to sponsor the country's first wireless electricity seminar.
Bioelectromagnetic Healing with High Voltage Electrotherapy
There are many bioelectromagnetic (BEM) devices re-emerging in the 21st century, based on high voltage Tesla coils, that apparently bring beneficial health improvements to human organisms. The Tesla coil class of therapy devices constitute pulsed electromagnetic fields (PEMF) that deliver broadband, wide spectrum, nonthermal photons and electrons deep into biological tissue. Speaking at the American Electro-Therapeutic Association annual conference in 1898, Nikola Tesla presented his historic paper on "High Frequency Oscillators for Electro-Therapeutic and Other Purposes" (The Electrical Engineer, Vol. XXVI, No. 550, Nov. 17, 1898, p. 477).
Today, electromedicine or electromagnetic medicine are the terms applied to such developments in the ELF, RF, IR, visible or UV band. With short term, non-contacting exposures of several minutes at a time, such high voltage Tesla PEMF devices may represent the ideal, noninvasive therapy of future energy medicine, accompanied by a surprising lack of harmful side effects. A biophysical rationale for the benefits of BEM healing a wide variety of illnesses including cancer, proposes a correlation between a bioelectromagnetically restored transmembrane potential, and the electron transport across cell membranes by electroporation, with normal cell metabolism and immune system enhancement. A new book on this subject has just been published by Integrity Research Institute entitled, Bioelectromagnetic Healing: A Rationale for its Use by Thomas Valone. Dr. Arthur Pilla, formerly at the Departments of Orthopedics at Mt. Sinai School of Medicine and Biomedical Engineering at Columbia University and inventor of a FDA-approved bone-healing electrodevice, recently expressed a preliminary endorsement of Valone's theory of high voltage "electronic antioxidation" proposed in the book. He offered to work more closely on further work in this area of bioelectromagnetics. Beverly Rubik, PhD at the Institute for Frontier Sciences says, "This is a great [book] that you published…Hopefully the next generation of doctors will be using BEM medicine!" William Bauer, MD says, "I personally enjoy sitting in the [Lakhovsky] multi-wave oscillator field because of the feeling of well being it gives me. I believe it helps me sleep well. I have used it daily for nearly 10 years. During this time, I have had very few colds. Additionally, I am able to play hard tennis almost every day with little in the way of aches and pains from pulled muscles and sprains."
A seminar on electrotherapy will be held on November 9, 2003, the second day of the Nikola Tesla Energy Conference and Exposition.
Tesla Conference Features Future Energy Applications
The Tesla Conference will feature experts on Nikola Tesla's wireless transmission of energy and his high voltage "electro-therapeutics." Confirmed speakers include:
Also Invited: Richard Moran, author, Executioner’s Current, on the AC-DC wars between Edison and Westinghouse. Participating exhibitors include Zephyr Technology, TeslaTech, Lost Arts Media, NovaLite, Friends of Science East, Meyl Demo Set.
The First Nikola Tesla Energy Science Conference & Exposition will be held November 8-9, 2003 in Washington DC Metro area at the Sheraton College Park Ballroom, 4095 Powder Mill Rd., Beltsville, MD 20705, phone 301-937-4422 www.sheraton.com/collegepark Special IRI Tesla conference room rates ($79) for "ADB group", include complimentary parking & metro shuttle (refrigerator, microwave, copy/fax at extra charge), available until October 8, 2003. The hotel is near all major transportation. Visit www.IntegrityResearchInstitute.org for registration online & more information. Go directly to the Tesla Conference and information webpage at http://users.erols.com/iri/tesla.htm (Note: for travel and work leave convenience, Monday, November 10th is a legal holiday in the US.)
*Valone, Thomas. "History and Physics of High-Voltage Electromagnetic Medicine" Explore, Vol. 12, No. 4, 2003, p. 37; "Tesla's Wireless Energy for the 21st Century" Atlantis Rising, October, 2003; "Direct Wireless Energy" Nexus, October, 2003; "Direct Electricity: Tesla Did It First" Extraordinary Technology, October, 2003; "Free Energy from Tesla's Wireless" New Energy Technology, October, 2003; "Reconsidering Tesla's Wireless Energy" Infinite Energy, December, 2003; "Engineering Tesla's Wireless Electricity" submitted to IEEE Potentials, July, 2003.
Future Energy eNews
is emailed once a month for free as a public service from: