POR - DOR SENSOR!

ndw · 2016-05-22 20:32:22

Wow!
I just realized after reading a very long page, that there is a way to sense if the ambient is PORy or DORy in a more scientific way.
An Orgone accumulator will have an inside temperature higher about 1 C degree than ambient if it will accumulate POR. Less than 1 C degree if there is DOR, or even a negative difference of temperature if highly DORy outside!
that is a point to further research! I will make an accumulator! I must see this in action!
To recap, the equation is Temperature of accumulator minus ambient Temperature. If less than 1C degree is DOR, if 1C degree or more is POR.

Here the original article about it, in short some one in Berlin had negative To-T because Berlin was DORy.
http://www.orgonelab.org/harreren.htm

the effects of environmental dor might have been sufficient to suppress the accumulator temperature readings, resulting in a low or even slightly negative To-T.

since the page is very big I paste here the paragraph related here

The Orgone Accumulator Temperature Differential (To-T)
Reich's Observations and Techniques on To-T
The To-T experiment is one of the more difficult of Reich's experiments to replicate, relying as it does upon the capacity to measure a very slight temperature increase, or spontaneous warming effect, which occurs within the orgone accumulator. One must firstly construct a good orgone accumulator, capable of building up a charge sufficient to yield the warming effect, and then -- to satisfy the criticisms of classical thermodynamics -- create a control enclosure which has nearly identical thermal properties (thermal resistance, heat capacity, etc.) as the accumulator, but which excludes the metals which are said to produce the primary energetic excitation for the warming effect. Temperatures are then monitored over a series of days, on an hour-by-hour basis, to determine the differentials. The accumulator warming effect, or To-T (temperature inside the accumulator minus temperature inside the control) is predicted to rise to slightly higher levels, but only under specific environmental conditions.

The spontaneous heat-production effect would primarily express itself on cloud-free sunny days, when the orgone charge at the earth's surface and within the accumulator is stronger. Generally, this phenomenon is extinguished on overcast rainy days, with the lowering of orgone charge at the earth's surface and within the accumulator, when primary orgone charge shifts upward into clouds. Bright sparkling days would produce a stronger effect, while dorish and stagnant atmospheric conditions would either extinguish the phenomenon or produce a reversed effect (accumulator cooler than control). One must also maintain the experimental accumulator and control enclosures in an environment shielded from mechanical environmental thermal effects, as under a shaded porch or sufficiently covered roof surface.

The literature on this particular experiment is beyond the scope of review here, but we may review the major factors involved:

MINIMAL ACCUMULATOR APPROACH: In this approach, two insulated boxes are constructed of identical materials and sizes, with a single layer of aluminum foil introduced onto the bottom floor surface of one of the insulated enclosures, to produce an "accumulator". Temperature sensors are introduced into the upper portion of the interior of each enclosure, to measure temperature. Here, the assumption is that the aluminum foil is of such a minor quantity that mechanical thermal effects are not significantly affected. Therefore, any warming which occurs in the accumulator is produced only by orgone energy effects. Reich had one such device set up at his Rangeley laboratory, as a working demonstration model. However, his set-up was under what might be called ideal environmental conditions , as discussed above. My own general criticism of this approach is that, in attempt to control the experiment for mechanical thermal properties of materials, the experimenter must significantly reduce the amount of metal materials in the accumulator construction, and run the risk of eliminating the effects of orgone energy. This is called over-controlling the experiment , where the phenomenon of interest is eliminated from the experiment in one's attempt to objectively measure it.

MAXIMAL ACCUMULATOR APPROACH: This approach is more taxing for the experimenter, but potentially more fruitful. Here, one constructs a single-layered or multi-layered orgone accumulator out of materials known to yield a strong charge: wool and steel wool layers, with interior steel chamber (no aluminum). One starts by making a small but strong orgone accumulator. The control enclosure is then constructed with sufficient size and mass to give it mechanical thermal properties close to that of the accumulator -- this is determined empirically, by closely monitoring temperatures while simultaneously subjecting both control and accumulator to strong mechanical thermal influences (direct exposure to sunlight, or a heat lamp, followed shortly afterward by quick shading or immersion in an ice-water bath). One then adds or removes insulating material to the control (including some thin sheets of insulating material, to mimic the metal sheeting in the accumulator) until the mechanical thermal responses of the accumulator and control to thermal forcing are nearly identical.

ACCUMULATOR-CONTROL INTERACTION: Regarding the above techniques, both the accumulator and control must be separated by a certain distance, around 10 cm minimum, to prevent any kind of energetic interaction between the orgone accumulator and control. The accumulator and control must additionally not be enclosed within another structure with accumulating properties.

EXPERIMENTAL ENVIRONMENT: Both the accumulator and control enclosures must be situated in an environment satisfying both orgone-energetic and classical thermodynamic arguments. One wishes to allow the accumulator to respond to orgonotic influences, which are predicted to not significantly affect the control device. Likewise, one wishes to be certain that no mechanical thermal heating or environmental convection is taking place, which might cause either the accumulator or control to be preferentially warmed or cooled from external sources. Both enclosures must be shaded from direct sunlight, and also from indirect, reflected or diffuse sunlight in an equal manner, and likewise be sheltered from winds which might affect one enclosure over another. These possible environmental temperature changes are best monitored by taking separate thermal measurements of the air immediately surrounding the accumulator and control. Additionally, the location of the experiment must be free of disturbing oranur-producing electromagnetic fields, as from nearby power-lines, electrical wiring in a structure, or any computer-driven system for temperature measurement. Generally, this approach has been employed by running the experiment under broad outdoor roofed structures, where the accumulator and control devices were shielded from exterior diffuse or reflected light by insulating panels, or other structures resembling meteorological shelters which are additionally shielded in other ways. The local atmospheric environment must also be selected for the general absence of dorish tendencies . If dor predominates for too great a percentage of time, flat-line zero-difference data curves may be anticipated.

AMBIENT METEOROLOGY: The experiment must be run with ambient air temperature taken into account, as too-quick an environmental temperature rise or fall might overwhelm the accumulator warming influence. The To-T effect might, in the more carefully controlled experiments,be measurable only during certain times of day, when temperatures are more stable or changing only in a slow manner. Additionally, meteorological pendulation is observed and recorded, given that days of high percent cloud cover and/or rains will extinguish or dramatically reduce the measurement differences.

ELECTRONIC VERSUS MERCURY THERMOMETERS: Reich and most early experimenters used glass mercury thermometers for their measurements, calibrated to 1/10th degree C., but capable of interpretation to a slightly greater precision. Such thermometers are calibrated by mechanical glass-grinding machines, which are set according to the boiling point and freezing point of water. Later experimentalists attempted use of electronic thermistors , which were quite sensitive, but problematically also created a slight bit of heat themselves, acting to warm the enclosures into which they were placed. Electronic thermocouples have since been used, as these are also sensitive, but do not add any heat of their own to the experimental environment. When used with a digital computer or analog recording device, thermocouples also need to be individually calibrated in ice-water and boiling water baths.

My Observations on To-T
My personal experience with To-T measurements is limited to a variety of mercury thermometer and thermistor temperature differential experiments, undertaken over the last 20 years. Mostly, I did not have the necessary equipment or working environment to undertake an experiment which would fully satisfy all the above criteria. I have never published anything from my own To-T experiments. However, as discussed below, some of my observations are pertinent, raising new questions about how the To-T experiment is performed.

POSSIBLE NEW COMPLICATION IN To-T: What I observed, during lengthy controlled experiments in 1984-85 in Kansas, was: A sensitive electronic measuring device would spontaneously go out of calibration shortly after being inserted inside the accumulator/control arrangement. Upon removal from the accumulator, however, the calibration would appear to be quite normal. This paradoxical result, repeated many times, was determined by making simultaneous measurements with both mercury and electronic thermometers in the To-T set-up. Repeated calibrations were made in boiling water and ice-water baths, but the measurements between mercury and electronic thermometers would quickly deviate when both were simultaneously inserted into the To-T set-up. Readings from the electronic thermometer were displayed on a strip-chart recorder, and these readings were constantly cross-checked. The measurements between mercury and electronic thermometers would remain nearly identical, nearly indistinguishable, under all environmental conditions, except when placed inside the accumulator. The mercury thermometer produced a different base-line measurement than the electronic thermometer, though with a similar temperature trend. I should say, I never intended to publicly discuss this observation without further corroboration, as I consider it to be very preliminary, and in need of clarification and better objective measurement. As a criticism to myself, one cannot raise the possibility of an entirely new and unsubstantiated phenomena as a valid objection against other research. The new phenomenon must firstly be demonstrated. I therefore did not wish to raise an issue publicly which I could not independently prove, and which may still prove to be only an artifact of my own experimental error.

However, in 1993, I received an unexpected communication from Victor Milian, a Spanish physicist, expressing his frustration with this very same problem. He had communicated his results, expressed as a direct effect of orgone energy upon the wires of an electronic temperature recording device , to the American College of Orgonomy. However, nobody at the ACO quite understood what he was talking about, and they rejected his paper without further investigation. To me, however, the paper opened my eyes, as Milian appeared to describe the same observation I previously made, but had never quite convinced myself as to its reality. The next issue of Pulse of the Planet will carry his experimental report, which is now being redrafted for publication -- but I feel it necessary to point out this problem here, given its general relevance to the To-T experiment. Possibly, this new effect may be refuted as an experimental artifact. But these observations, made independently in Kansas and Spain, suggest that accumulator electronic temperature differentials should be even more carefully scrutinized, cross-checked and controlled with mercury thermometers. Perhaps it may become necessary to return to the use of only mercury thermometers.

To continue, once all the above factors are taken into account, any observed anomalous changes between the temperatures in the accumulator, as compared to the control (beyond a certain margin of error), are reviewed for significance. As one might imagine, it is a taxing, but nonetheless significant experiment when properly performed. The magnitude of significance of this experiment may be viewed against Albert Einstein's comment to Reich, that the To-T would be a "bomb in physics". We may also point to the incredible furor created by Pons and Fleishman, who observed a slight spontaneous temperature increase in their "cold fusion" experiments.

Harrer's Observations and Techniques on To-T
Regarding Harrer's experimental work on To-T, I base my criticisms upon a visit to his home laboratory several years ago, where he described his procedures to me. Also, in 1993 I was invited to a meeting of the Reich Society in Berlin, wherein Harrer presented his preliminary negative findings on the To-T measurements. It was clear to me then that his design was over-controlled: He took the above-described "minimal accumulator" approach, of constructing an accumulator which would closely match the control enclosure. Both at his home, and at the Berlin Reich Society presentation, I made a friendly and constructive critique, that he should switch to the more rigorous and difficult maximal accumulator approach. I specifically remember that meeting, wherein several members of the Reich Society spoke up in agreement with me about this point, that the orgone energy effect had been "controlled out" of his To-T experiment

Harrer's experimental design was novel in some respects, employing two accumulators and two controls within the same general proximity within a double-walled meteorological instrument shelter. The shelter was raised above the ground, and located within the shade of a grove of trees, within the Berlin city limits. Many of the classical thermodynamic requirements of the To-T appeared satisfied, but, in addition to the above-mentioned problems, several of the new elements might have introduced new errors. The use of multiple accumulators and controls within the same general confines were assumed to have no influence upon the outcome, which may or may not be the case. Early on, Harrer observed variations between the two separate control enclosures which were greater than the variations between control and accumulator readings. From this, he concluded that there was no accumulator influence upon temperature (and therefore, no orgone) -- but his results suggest other possibilities. Firstly, the effects of environmental dor might have been sufficient to suppress the accumulator temperature readings, resulting in a low or even slightly negative To-T. Secondly, the greater variability between two closely matched controls than between the controls and accumulators suggests a temperature-dampening influence of the accumulator -- why should there have been any difference, given the fact that the difference between the accumulators and controls was the presence of a small strip of metal foil at the bottom of the accumulator? The difference still needs to be explained. Third, his results suggested the experimental shelter was subject to mechanically-forced environmental temperature variations.

In my view, the most proper and responsible step for Harrer to have taken, after discovering this preliminary negative result would have been to re-arrange or move the experiment to some new location where temperature variations between the controls had been "quieted down". Only with the elimination of mechanically-forced variations in environmental temperature would his To-T readings gain significance. In particular, the shading of Harrer's apparatus -- a meteorological shelter located under a tree canopy in a residential area of Berlin -- might not have been sufficiently large. All successful To-T experiments have been undertaken under completely opaque shaded areas, such as the roofs of open-air porches or buildings, which are a significant distance (1-2 meters) above the accumulator and control devices, and the enclosure which might immediately surround them. Such roof areas may have a fundamentally different influence upon the experiment -- both thermally and orgonotically -- than a tree canopy.

An additional suggestion I made previously to Harrer, was to eliminate one of the two accumulators, or to significantly increase the distances between accumulators and controls and also the size of the sheltered enclosure, given the possibility of energetic interactions between the two accumulators. I referred him to the work of the biologist Frank Brown, who observed, in his sensitive biological clock experiments, that a dish of sprouting bean seeds could energetically influence the rate of growth of another nearby dish of sprouting seeds -- one gaining in size, the other diminishing in size -- when the two dishes were located in close proximity to each other. When the distance separating the dishes is increased to around 10 cm, the effect disappeared; closer than that, the effect appeared. Brown's observation suggested an orgonotic potential effect asserting itself through the energetic fields of the two dishes.

Another factor of major concern is the generally dorish atmosphere of Berlin, as discussed above. Did Harrer monitor wet/cloudy and sunny/dry days in seeking out the times when the accumulator would function best? Did he likewise monitor general atmospheric dor conditions during this experiment, using either general visibility as an indicator of atmospheric haze, or something similar to the Baker dor index? If not, then does he discount the influences of dor conditions, which in America at least have sometimes been correlated with either minimal or negative To-T measurements? This factor alone could also be a source of near-zero or negative To-T. Again: Reich's experiments took place in the high-altitude, relatively pristine environment of rural Maine, which is heavily forested and generally dor-free most of the year -- the atmosphere held even less dor at Reich's time than today, if we use atmospheric haze and visibility as a general indicator. By contrast, Berlin is a region of light-to-heavy dorish conditions for much of the year.

All the above criticisms, save for the problem with electronic versus mercury thermometers, were openly presented to Harrer in a friendly and constructive manner. However, my impression is that few were incorporated into his experimental designs for subsequent renewed measurement. Assuming I am correct here, then his To-T measurements are at best highly preliminary, on the order of a student's pilot study, and cannot be considered as serious or conclusive attempts to replicate this highly sensitive and difficult experimental procedure. Reich's results, and the results of others since Reich, have not been seriously challenged by Harrer's results.

jeaux · 2016-06-01 22:33:42

I dunno about you guys, but I always had a nagging suspicion of this James DeMeo guy. He has a number of good sources and solid science, but this page in particular has made me doubtful: http://www.orgonelab.org/orgonenonsense.htm

Plus his website design is atrocious. Almost like he's intentionally trying to frame orgone in a subpar, low-quality light. And the outfit in his picture? It feels like he's trying to posture himself as a quack.

Maybe I'm wrong about all of this, but I feel like he's not as genuine as he might seem.

Loohan · 2016-06-02 07:15:47

jeaux wrote:

I dunno about you guys, but I always had a nagging suspicion of this James DeMeo guy. He has a number of good sources and solid science, but this page in particular has made me doubtful: http://www.orgonelab.org/orgonenonsense.htm
Plus his website design is atrocious. Almost like he's intentionally trying to frame orgone in a subpar, low-quality light. And the outfit in his picture? It feels like he's trying to posture himself as a quack.
Maybe I'm wrong about all of this, but I feel like he's not as genuine as he might seem.

I see you make diligent use of my site search engine.
DeMeo is blood-drinking CIA human satanist. We had a lot of trouble with his DORy "cloudbusters" in parts of the world, causing droughts. This was like '05, maybe pre-blog. We had to remotely neutralize them.

mvinon · 2016-06-02 13:58:13

Sure is not to many good people out there anymore, now these evil people...like this one does he even realize that he is evil? Or does he actually think that he is doing good?

ndw · 2016-06-02 14:09:24

guys I know DeMeo is not so good about orgonites etc and probably other stuff. And I really don't understand why he is speaking this way except I vaguely suspect he was threaded in the past or maybe he wants to stay in the classical Reich view without new stuff.

but here we are speaking about the fact that I have found this article regarding the possibility to make a POR / DOR sensor by using the accumulator and high accurate analogic thermometer.

So can you go back on topic? :-)

At the moment I am a bit out of money but I'll manage soon to build a little accumulator. The expensive stuff are the analogic thermometers.

thanks

ndw · 2016-06-02 14:13:30

the accumulator doesn't need to be big for this test. I think.
so I will make a 'desktop' version of accumulator and I'll leave it outside in air so it will be perfect for detecting the ambient energy.

UrosS · 2016-06-04 16:51:04

I sense POR when there is no DOR....relief, being centred and natural energy flow all over. Most people are adopted to DOR as far is everywhere, thinking it's normal.

Loohan Forums

#1 2016-05-22 20:32:22

POR - DOR SENSOR!

#2 2016-06-01 22:33:42

Re: POR - DOR SENSOR!

#3 2016-06-02 07:15:47

Re: POR - DOR SENSOR!

#4 2016-06-02 13:58:13

Re: POR - DOR SENSOR!

#5 2016-06-02 14:09:24

Re: POR - DOR SENSOR!

#6 2016-06-02 14:13:30

Re: POR - DOR SENSOR!

#7 2016-06-04 16:51:04

Re: POR - DOR SENSOR!

Board footer