You need more energy only for the purose of balancing the maths. We spend very
little energy in the unbalancing but we get a great deal out of the other end.
Where it comes from is another matter. What I said is just one way that I find
interesting because it so neatly combines Reich, Kelley and G.

The possibility that the cell, in addition to its accumulation function, is also
an orgone source has opened my mind in a way that just thrills me. Of course it
could be wrong, but I already know it correlates hugely with things that before
I just could not get to sit down nicely. If it is true the consequences are
amazing. We have found a relationship between G's three independent forces that
is engineerable. Those that understand the consequences of this must be
half-thrilled and half shitting their pants.

G said his system (the fourth way) was "against God". A few days ago I was
forced to write that I think the cell works "against nature". To me its the same
stuff. There are these systems of thought that appear to be coverging. It would
take a me yonks to write it all out and I don't think anyone cares that much.
But to me it is very exciting. I have the sense of going back to somethting I
always knew, and at the same time it seems completely uncharted.

But becuase you and I talk a good deal I want to try to get over to you that, in
contrast to my way in years gone by, I am not trying to eliminate possibilities,
I am now trying to synthesise, bring together that which I think has value and
*use the synthesis as an engine*. At this point in my search that has become the
right thing to do. I want as many people as can possibly be to get something
good out of it.

Regards

Adrian
--- In joecellfreeenergydevice@yahoogroups.com, "Bernie" <bernieheere@...>
wrote:
>
> Adrian,
>
> Why does more energy have to come into the system. There's already more
> energy than we can possibly use in the atoms comprising the water. Think
> cold fusion, or even hot fusion.
>
> As far as Orgone accumulators are concerned. I think Dor is simply the
> opposite spin as good orgone. The accumulators simply create a preponderance
> of the good, and promotes healing and growth by swamping out the bad. The
> cells do this as well. A reversed cell can really drain us, while a properly
> set up cell is a feel good device.
>
> Bernie
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Adrian" <adrian.mutimer@...>
> To: <joecellfreeenergydevice@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Thursday, July 09, 2009 2:57 AM
> Subject: [Joe Cell Free Energy Device] Imbalance and energy
>
>
> > Folks in what follows I try to reconfigure some small part of Reich. This
> > is bloody sacrilege to some people, but this is a mistake. Reich made many
> > mistakes and corrected them throughout his career. He was also very long
> > on the idea that there were mistakes in his current thinking. In short
> > Reich's thinking never ossiffied. That is how we must be with it. In what
> > follows I ask those versed in orgone theory to open up to a possibility
> > that seems impossible, or even sacriligious. But orgone theory has not yet
> > delivered what we want from the cell and so we have to dare to ask "is it
> > completely correct?"
> >
> > The follwoing is a derivation from the ideas of Charles Kelley
> > reconfigured under those of Gurdjieff.
> >
> >
> > *******************************
> >
> > There is a degree of consensus that the cell is creating imbalance and
> > that rebalance takes place in the engine. Another way of saying this is we
> > take a stable position, we destabilise it and we then provide conditions
> > where it can restabilise.
> >
> > When we express it this way it is not very different than other, less
> > interesting, energy processes. Compare it to the proces in a battery. If
> > we are to continue to use this language we would have to say that when the
> > battery was made we created an imbalance and that when we connect the
> > battery to a circuit, it rebalances. So there is nothing too special about
> > our general statment that the cell creates and resolves imbalance, it is a
> > fundamental of all energy tranfers.
> > What is interesting is that the sums don't add up.
> >
> > Clearly, and unlike a battery, with a Joe Cell we put a lot less energy
> > into the unbalancing than we get out of the rebalancing. Somewhere along
> > the line came in a huge influx of extra energy. This influx is the
> > interesting bit - it is our free energy. So what is it about our
> > imbalance/rebalance process that is special?
> >
> > There are several ways we can think about this. We could for example say
> > that, when the imbalance occurs, conditions are created that tend to draw
> > extra energy fromthe environment to the separated components. This is
> > comparable to the idea of a heat pump. It also compares to the energy
> > process of Lyne who says that when monotomic hydrogen is made from the
> > diatomic form, it is capable of absorbing energy from the environment and
> > when the diatomic form is remade (and burnt) this energy that was sucked
> > in to the molecule is released, giving the appearance of more energy out
> > at the point of burning. Both of these illustrations convey the idea of
> > the cell might be a kind of energy well. I don't say that anything like
> > this is going on, I just point out that it is a way of thinking about the
> > benign failure of our sums to add up.
> >
> > At some point more energy has to come into the system. Simply imbalancing
> > the system is not enough.
> >
> > OK so I will now embarrass myself among orgone heads and say I think it is
> > possible that the cell *produces* energy ina way not unlike the scenarios
> > above. Why is this embarassing? Becuase one of the most common beginner's
> > errors when learning about orgone accumulators is to think that they are
> > generators. You see this misunderstanding of Reich all the time, and you
> > will see a thousand gentle explanations that this is not so and that the
> > acumulator accumulates. The explanations will normally take the reader
> > through an explanation of how the accumulator works, which for our purpose
> > is essentially that it takes atmposheric free-orgone and concentrates it
> > by use of an orgone gradient across the walls of the accumulator. They
> > remind people that the accumulator was invented on the basis of the
> > understanding of what metals and organic materials do to orgone. In shot
> > they go back through the logic that underlay the invention of the
> > acuumulator in the very first place.
> >
> > But there are faults with the logic of the medical accumulator. The idea
> > is that someone who is ill and who has low quantities of orgone within
> > their bodies sits inside it and is exposed to high concentration of free
> > orgone; they are supposed to absorb this highly concentrated orgone and
> > have a beneficial reaction. But this doens't add up. Orgone travels from
> > low concntration to higher concentration. OK so we now have a box full of
> > high concnetration orgone from which the person in the accumulator, who
> > has a low level of orgone, is supposed to take in his fill. But he can't!
> > He has a low orgone level and the box has a high level. If we retain the
> > idea that orgone flows from low to high then the box should not add orgone
> > to the person inside, it should extract it!!!
> >
> > It is not well known that Reich was unhappy with his explanation of the
> > accumulator. He said "it is too mechanistic". And he too could see the
> > problem I have just pointed out.
> >
> > In fact it makes alot more sense if we believe that the orgone accumulator
> > *lowers* the desnity of orgone around the patient either so that he can
> > more easily absorb what is there and/or perhaps do something far more
> > radical...
> >
> > It depends on whether you think it is possible that new orgone can come
> > into being from the void. I absolutely think so. If you do, we can
> > reconfigure our thinking about the accumulator. We can say that it lowers
> > the orgone desnity around the patient *in all directions* and that, in
> > addition to assisting the accumulating function of the patent, *new orgone
> > energy is made within the patient*. We can say that a petent with low
> > ogone levels fails to have sufficient orgone within him not just becuase
> > he can't accumulate it from the atmosphere but becuase his low orgone
> > levsl have caused a failure of his own internal *source* of orgone. The
> > source is his internal void.
> >
> > Now go to the cell. Under this thinking we put the idea of the cell as an
> > accumulator in a new perspective. When we make a cell we create *a void*.
> > The void contains truly *nothing* it is an orgone void. *The source for
> > new orgone is the void at the center of the cell and that void is defined
> > by an "enclosure of orgone*. So in the cell we have a true void,
> > surrounded by an orgone environment and this arrangement creates more
> > orgone, pulling it through, or from, the void. By this means we create new
> > energy tht was never before in the universe. This is why the void is
> > primary. If it did not sound so ridiculous we would say the void is
> > everything. From the void (the one) comes the polarised orgone (the two)
> > and from these two comes the ten thousand, what we call reality. Creation
> > then starts with the void making something completely new and that was
> > never here in our universe before. This dumps the idea of the conservation
> > of energy completely.
> >
> > Please notice I am not at all saying that the cell is not an accumulator -
> > I think it is - but I think it is also a source and that this function is
> > maybe one we have to nurture. The faulire of the cell to continue as a
> > source may be one of the reasons why the cell fails. We may be drowning
> > the void.
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Adrian
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>