Adrian,

I think the entire system including the engine acts somewhat like a big
capacitor in that it slowly charges up, and discharges in an instant, with a
huge burst of energy. Of course, slowly is relative. At the frequencies
we're working with the 2 ms or so we see between ignition pulses is like an
eternity.

Have you seen: http://www.psychotronics.org/ He seems to be right on with a
lot of this, and he's not a highly difficult read. I found almost all of his
sub pages interesting.

Bernie

----- Original Message -----
From: "Adrian" <adrian.mutimer@...>
To: <joecellfreeenergydevice@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, July 10, 2009 2:09 AM
Subject: Re: [Joe Cell Free Energy Device] Imbalance and energy


> 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
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>