Dear Paul,

 

Well, some of your points are well taken, while others completely missed the mark!

 

The kind of presentation you seek for the more scientific groups is not possible; this is not yet a developed technology at all, but a totally new one where only the "outline sketch" is known and recognized as yet. It needs years of "defining" experiments and millions of dollars in research funding, if we are ever to turn it into a formal technology!

 

E.g., simply try to discuss the exact ramifications of J. P. Morgan eliciting Lorentz in 1892 to arbitrarily symmetrize the (already curtailed) Heaviside vector equations, which ALTERED and MUTILATED theory (it discarded all asymmetric Maxwellian systems) was then used to provide the theory for the new technical subject called "electrical engineering". Why do we cite this "esoteric" thing from group theory? Here's why.

 

Quoting Nobelist Weinberg: “It is increasingly clear that the symmetry group of nature is the deepest thing that we understand about nature today.” [Steven Weinberg, in R. P. Feynman and S. Weinberg, Elementary Particles and the Laws of Physics, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1999, p. 73].

 

See also work by the great electrodynamicist Barrett, who is also one of the co-founders of ultrawideband radar. E.g.:

 

Terence W. Barrett, Topological Foundations of Electromagnetism. World Scientific Series in Contemporary Chemical Physics, Vol. 26, 2008.

     Abstract: Topological Foundations of Electromagnetism seeks a fundamental understanding of the dynamics of electromagnetism; and marshals the evidence that in certain precisely defined topological conditions, electromagnetic theory (Maxwell's theory) must be extended or generalized in order to provide an explanation and understanding of, until now, unusual electromagnetic phenomena. Key to this generalization is an understanding of the circumstances under which the so-called A potential fields have physical effects. Basic to the approach taken is that the topological composition of electromagnetic fields is the fundamental conditioner of the dynamics of these fields. The treatment of electromagnetism from, first, a topological perspective, continuing through group theory and gauge theory, to a differential calculus description is a major thread of the book. Suggestions for potential new technologies based on this new understanding and approach to conditional electromagnetism are also given.

     Contents: (a) Electromagnetic Phenomena Not Explained by Maxwell's Equations.

     (b) Sagnac Effect: A Consequence of Conservation of Action Due to Gauge Field Global Conformal Invariance in a Multiply Joined Topology of Coherent Fields.

     (c) Topological Approaches to Electromagnetism.

 

Nikola Tesla (in the late 1880s before electrical engineering was even born) had already discovered asymmetric EM circuits and how to take the EM energy one wished directly from the vacuum (the "active medium"), without any consumption of fuel. Quoting:

 

"Ere many generations pass, our machinery will be driven by a power obtainable at any point in the universe. This idea is not novel... We find it in the delightful myth of Antheus, who derives power from the earth; we find it among the subtle speculations of one of your splendid mathematicians...Throughout space there is energy. Is this energy static or kinetic? If static our hopes are in vain; if kinetic – and this we know it is, for certain – then it is a mere question of time when men will succeed in attaching their machinery to the very wheelwork of nature." [Nikola Tesla, in a speech in New York to the American Institute of Electrical Engineers, 1891. Quoted from back cover of his biography, Margaret Cheney, Tesla: Man Out of Time, Simon and Schuster, 2001].

 

Tesla, Nikola. “Electric power is everywhere present in unlimited quantities and can drive the world's machinery without the need of coal, oil, gas, or any other of the common fuels." [Nikola Tesla].

 

Tesla, Nikola. During an address in 1897 commemorating his installation of generators at Niagara Falls, Tesla stated:

     “We have to evolve means for obtaining energy from stores which are forever inexhaustible, to perfect methods which do not imply consumption and waste of any material whatever. I now feel sure that the realization of that idea is not far off. ...the possibilities of the development I refer to, namely, that of the operation of engines on any point of the earth by the energy of the medium...” [Nikola Tesla, during an address in 1897 commemorating his installation of generators at Niagara Falls.].

 

Tesla, Nikola. "Whatever our resources of primary energy may be in the future, we must, to be rational, obtain it without consumption of any material." [Nikola Tesla, 1900].

 

To prove that Tesla could have done what he said, particularly see the following by T. W. Barrett:

 

T. W. Barrett, "Tesla's Nonlinear Oscillator-Shuttle-Circuit (OSC) Theory," Annales de la Fondation Louis de Broglie, 16(1), 1991, p. 23-41. Barrett shows that EM expressed in quaternions allows shuttling and storage of potentials in circuits, and also allows additional EM functioning of a circuit that a conventional EM analysis cannot reveal. He shows that Tesla’s patented circuits did exactly this. [Paper is carried on the cheniere.org website at internet link http://www.cheniere.org/references/TeslaOSC.pdf. ]  Now recall that Maxwell's actual theory is 20 quaternion-like equations in 20 unknowns. So Maxwell -- who died in 1879 -- also knew that there were "asymmetric" EM systems as well as symmetrical EM systems.

Barrett was so impressed by Tesla's insight and discoveries that he extended one of Tesla's patents with two extended process patents. They are:

Terence W. Barrett. (1996) "Active Signalling Systems," U.S. Patent No. 5,486,833, Jan. 23, 1996. A signaling system in time-frequency space for detecting targets in the presence of clutter and for penetrating media. 14 U.S. patents cited. 22 claims, 37 drawing sheets.

Barrett, Terence W., "Oscillator-Shuttle-Circuit (OSC) Networks for Conditioning Energy in Higher-Order Symmetry Algebraic Topological Forms and RF Phase Conjugation," U.S. Patent No. 5,493,691. Feb. 20, 1996.

---------------------------------

 

Interestingly, we went to the National Science Foundation (To Dr. Bement, Director) with a compilation listing of the dozen or more known falsities being taught in electrical engineering, and that have been pointed out by Nobelists and other leading physicists. Dr. Bement ordered a formal review of the falsities paper by NSF, which thus involved NSF physicists and not just the EEs. On my website you can see the copy of the NSF letter of reply, finding strong merit in the paper.

 

But then for action, Dr. Bement had to turn it over to his highest staff already handling electrical power, etc. In short, to the electrical engineers. Their response was, "There's nothing wrong with our model! We have a fine model. Your TV set works, doesn't it?"

 

------------------------------------

 

Anyway, as an exercise try finding out the serious and crippling ramifications of that deliberate mutilation of the electrical engineering model, by Lorentz symmetrization (using stolen work from Lorenz) just before EE was born!

 

And check with the physicists on group theory . It's been in our universities since 1870, but they do not include it in the EE curriculum. [Hmmm! Do you reckon that's because someone doesn't wish the EE's to understand what was done diabolically to them in 1892?]

 

Also, try commenting on the arbitrary discard (again, by Lorentz, elicited by J. P. Morgan in 1900) of Heaviside's new and profound discovery that every generator is already pouring out some 10 trillion times as much EM energy flow as is in the tiny little "diverged" Poynting component (and as is in the mechanical input energy we are inserting to crank the shaft of the generator). The linear little Poynting output EM energy component flow is diverged into the external circuit to power up the electrons. But Heaviside's giant energy flow is in curled form, and (in any special relativity situation) the divergence of the curl is zero. Hence, since almost every EE situation is special relativistic (i.e., is in one fixed frame), then in that frame the giant Heaviside curled component is not diverged, so the entire giant curled energy flow component just roars on off into space and is lost.

 

Okay, let me hear your own thoughts on the significance of that ESTABLISHED FACT. Lorentz taught all the scientists to just arbitrarily remove that giant curled Heaviside component via a little integration trick, with the succinct pronouncement that "it can have no physical significance". That pronouncement is true in a special relativistic situation, but it is NOT true in a general relativistic situation!

 

Also, since EE theory is special relativistic, then in the EE model energy is conserved (in the fixed frame) as is momentum. That is not the general case, however! Because if one introduces a general relativistic situation (such as the Negative Resonance Absorption of the Medium in optical physics), then conservation does not apply. In that case, the "unit" outputs (in experiments performed every year in every leading optics group in the physics departments at our universities) some 18 times as much output POYNTING energy flow as what we measure (in that lab frame) as having been input.

 

Why don't they teach our EEs that energy and momentum are not necessarily conserved in a general relativistic situation? It is a solid and well-established fact and it has been known for more than 90 years! Quoting the great mathematician Hilbert, a couple Russian scientists, and Sir Roger Penrose:

 

Hilbert, D. Quoting: "I assert... that for the general theory of relativity, i.e., in the case of general invariance of the Hamiltonian function, energy equations... corresponding to the energy equations in orthogonally invariant theories do not exist at all. I could even take this circumstance as the characteristic feature of the general theory of relativity." [D. Hilbert, Gottingen Nachrichten, Vol. 4, 1917, p. 21.].

 

Logunov and Loskutov.  Quoting, p. 179. "In formulating the equivalence principle, Einstein actually abandoned the idea of the gravitational field as a Faraday-Maxwell field, and this is reflected in the pseudotensorial characterization of the gravitational field that he introduced. Hilbert was the first to draw attention to the consequences of this. … Unfortunately, … Hilbert was evidently not understood by his contemporaries, since neither Einstein himself nor other physicists recognized the fact that in general relativity conservation laws for energy, momentum, and angular momentum are in principle impossible." [A. A. Logunov and Yu. M. Loskutov, "Nonuniqueness of the predictions of the general theory of relativity," Sov. J. Part. Nucl., 18(3), May-June 1987, p. 179].

 

Penrose, Roger: “We seem to have lost those most crucial conservation laws of physics, the laws of conservation of energy and momentum!” [Penrose then adds the Killing symmetry arbitrarily, to get conservation again, when the Killing vector applies and gravity is separated.]. “These conservation laws hold only in a spacetime for which there is the appropriate symmetry, given by the Killing vector ĸ…. [These considerations] do not really help us in understanding what the fate of the conservation laws will be when gravity itself becomes an active player. We still have not regained our missing conservation laws of energy and momentum, when gravity enters the picture. ... This awkward-seeming fact has, since the early days of general relativity, evoked some of the strongest objections to that theory, and reasons for unease with it, as expressed by numerous physicists over the years. … in fact Einstein’s theory takes account of energy-momentum conservation in a rather sophisticated way – at least in those circumstances where such a conservation law is most needed. …Whatever energy there is in the gravitational field itself is to be excluded from having any representation…” [Roger Penrose, The Road to Reality, Alfred A. Knopf, New York, 2005, p. 457-458.]
     Comment: This “solution” accepted by many general relativists is to just arbitrarily toss out the gravity and gravitational energy density of spacetime in a given troublesome case, and the problem of nonconservation of energy and momentum then vanishes. In short, separate the spacetime itself from the fields, and there is no problem! However, simply avoiding the problem itself is not solving the problem! Considering the neglected and unaccounted giant Heaviside energy flow always accompanying every Poynting EM energy flow, the gravity effect is always at least of importance, and this accepted “resolution” itself is in general nearly always untenable.

-------------------------------

 

The sad thing is that, in this struggling "field" (overunity COP asymmetric Maxwellian power systems) that is not yet a field, hardly any of the technology and theory etc. has been worked out! Inventors who have a bit of success are hounded (and have been hounded for more than 100 years) and even killed. Over a hundred inventors have been killed in the last 50 years alone. Several known to me have just "quit" after receiving a clear warning that otherwise their children and wives will be killed. So one might ask: How many assassination attempts have you yourself encountered? I myself quit counting at a dozen. I also have an independent witness to some of them! [Ever heard of a Venus technique shooter and what it does to the human heart? Ask your deep ECM countermeasures folks about it. Or have you heard of a "throwaway assassin" such as the one who killed Robert Kennedy? You haven't lived until you encounter one of those. The MidEast oil country rulers are fond of using that kind of assassin.

 

So this area needs a funded and organized Manhattan Project to work out the very things you are looking for. It will require a very skilled and team of physicists and higher group symmetry electrodynamicists, NOT just electrical engineers! And we are speaking of something like a $100 million project per year, minimum and for several years, minimum.

 

--------------------------------------

 

One of the real problems in the entire field is the symmetrical experience of electrical engineers with their APPLIED research field, such as ordinary electrical engineering. Here you have a hundred years of experiments, fitting, working out the descriptions of the interactions, etc. And yet, there are more than 200 NAMED magnetics effects that are known, and less than half of them are understood!

 

And there is not a single electrical engineer today who actually knows anything about asymmetric Maxwellian systems, even though Maxwell's actual theory includes great numbers of such systems. And -- perhaps sadly -- only those asymmetric Maxwellian systems can produce COP>1.0 by use of excess EM energy from the seething virtual state vacuum. In EE, they regard the vacuum as inert and just "empty space".

 

Finally, there is not a single EE alive today who understands how an EM system is powered. E.g., the energy flowing from the terminals of a generator has nothing directly to do with the mechanical energy one inputs to crank the generator shaft! Instead, it comes from the broken symmetry of the internal source dipole, once the internal charges of the generator are separated into a dipolarity. THAT DIPOLARITY's broken symmetry absorbs the true input EM energy directly from the virtual state vacuum, and then changes it (integrates it) to quantum form and continually outputs a steady stream of real observable photons. We've actually known that (though somewhat obscurely) in physics since the award of the Nobel Prize to Lee and Yang in 1957. That's for more than 50 years!

 

E.g., quoting Nobelist Lee:

 

"Since nonobservables imply symmetry, any discovery of asymmetry must imply some observable. The experiment of Wu, Ambler, Hayward, Hoppes and Hudson… established the asymmetry between the positive and negative signs of electricity." T. D. Lee, Symmetries, Asymmetries, and the World of Particles, U. Wash. Press, Seattle, 1988, p. 11. In other words, any dipole is a proven broken symmetry.

 

Lee, T. D. “…the violation of symmetry arises whenever what was thought to be a non-observable turns out to be actually an observable.” [T. D. Lee, Particle Physics and Introduction to Field Theory, Harwood Academy Publishers, Chur, New York, and London, 1981, p. 181.]  This is a sophisticated way of saying that a broken symmetry integrates its virtual state inputs into observable state outputs.

 

 

So in this COP>1.0 EM systems area, we still have little or no applied research and fitting. Instead, we have the decades of bench experience of a very few inventors such as John Bedini. And of a few others.

 

So we are NOT at the stage where we can just run down to Radio Shack, get some parts, whip them together, and always have a system that will work "using EM energy from the vacuum" and thus ready to go directly into production engineering. There are years of experiments and fitting (and model building) still necessary before we are at that stage -- that is, before we are at the stage that electrical engineering is at, presently.

 

Please note also that we do give exact references for our major points, and these can be checked out by any researcher who wishes to go study the literature a bit.

 

Even so, in energy from the vacuum COP>1.0 systems, there are a vast number of things yet completely unknown, and still to be worked out before we have a practical engineering discipline and a practical technology.

 

Electrical engineering has had dozens and dozens of large funded projects (Manhattan-type projects) in its 100 years. With hundreds of thousands of experimenters.  We haven't yet had a single one.

 

However, I'm in some very strange and unusual negotiations just now (for want of a better word) to try to get some extraordinary wealthy folks to form and launch just such a Manhattan Project in this area. Don't know whether it will be successful or not. But at least, so far it's still hopeful and there's at least a fifty/fifty chance of seeing it happen. A very, very few wealthy entrepreneurs are at least seriously interested.

 

--------------------------------------------

 

And that, Paul, is the very best I can do! If you have some way to get it done and do it better, please go do it! The entire world needs it desperately. I do not care who does it, just so long as it gets done!

 

Remember, Klimov's work at Los Alamos National Lab -- published in leading refereed physics and nanocrystalline journals, and independently replicated and proven also by the National Recoverable Energy Lab folks -- has proven for all time that real physical systems can be built which will take extra EM energy directly from the vacuum and use it to power systems. Their micro-nanocrystalline solar cells do just this, and COP = 200% is readily and easily achieved for peanuts. The theoretical max of their process is 700%. Again, very rigorously proven for all time.  (Simply Google on Klimov, LANL, etc.).

 

Hang in there,

 

Tom Bearden

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

P.S.  Some Klimov-related references to get you started:

 

Victor Klimov in Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico has constructed a solar cell which can absorb the light of a specific wave length in such a way, that one photon can energize more than one electron. As soon as the electron absorbs a photon, it disappears for a very short moment into the quantum field. Being in the virtual state the electron can borrow energy from the vacuum and thereafter appears again in our reality. Now the electron can energize up to 7 other electrons. This leads to a theoretical coefficient of performance (COP) of 700%. A COP = 200% can be readily achieved and it has been. The experiment has also been replicated successfully by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Golden Colorado. [Herb Brody, "Solar Power - Seriously Souped Up." New Scientist, May 27, 2006, p 45].  

     Quoting: “Make solar cells as small as a molecule; and you get more than you bargained for. Could this be the route to limitless clean power?"].

     Comment by T.E.B.: Note that the super-excited electron, after emerging from the seething virtual state vacuum immersion, actually splits into two or more electrons! So the output current of the solar cell process is freely amplified by excess energy from the local virtual state vacuum. Note that at about COP = 3.0, one could conceivably add clamped positive feedback of one of those output electrons back to the "dive back into the seething virtual state vacuum" input, replacing the original electron input, and the unit would be "self-powering" (powered by energy from the vacuum) while putting out the other two electrons as output.
     Or by using some of the output current in a radiation-producing process, one could have the positive feedback input as a radiation photon, to replace the initial solar input entirely. In this fashion, once "jump started" by some source of solar radiation, the resulting "solar panel" system would become totally self-powering, taking all its input and output energy directly from the seething vacuum itself

     Additional references; Richard D. Schaller, Vladimir M. Agranovich and Victor I. Klimov; "High-efficiency carrier multiplication through direct photogeneration of multi-excitons via virtual single-exciton states."  Nature Physics  Vol. 1, 2005, pp. 189-194.
     Richard D. Schaller, Melissa A. Petruska, and Victor I. Klimov; "Effect of electronic structure on carrier multiplication efficiency: Comparative study of PbSe and CdSe nanocrystals"; Appl. Phys. Lett. Vol. 87, 2005, 253102.

     Richard D. Schaller, Milan Sykora, Jeffrey M. Pietryga, and Victor I. Klimov, "Seven Excitons at a Cost of One: Redefining the Limits for Conversion Efficiency of Photons into Charge Carriers," Nano Lett. Vol. 6, 2006, p. 424.

     Victor I. Klimov, "Spectral and Dynamical Properties of Multiexcitons in Semiconductor Nanocrystals," Annual Review of Physical Chemistry, Vol. 58, No. 1, 2007, p. 635.

     M. C. Hanna, A. J. Nozik. "Solar conversion efficiency of photovoltaic and photoelectrolysis cells with carrier multiplication absorbers," Journal of Applied Physics, vol. 100, No. 7, 2006, p. 07450.
     Sung Jin Kim, Won Jin Kim, Yudhisthira Sahoo, Alexander N. Cartwright, Paras N. Prasad, "Multiple exciton generation and electrical extraction from a PbSe quantum dot photoconductor," Applied Physics Letters, Vol. 92, No. 3, 2008, p. 031107.
     Alberto Franceschetti, Yong Zhang, "Multiexciton Absorption and Multiple Exciton Generation in CdSe Quantum Dots," Physical Review Letters, Vol. 100, No. 13, 2008, p. 136805. 

     G. Allan, C. Delerue, "Role of impact ionization in multiple exciton generation in PbSe nanocrystals," Physical Review B, Vol. 73 (20), 2006, p. 205423.

     Hsiang-Yu Chen, Michael K. F. Lo, Guanwen Yang, Harold G. Monbouquette, Yang Yang, "Nanoparticle-assisted high photoconductive gain in composites of polymer and fullerene," Nature Nanotechnology, Vol. 3 (9), 2008, p. 543.

     M.C. Beard, R.J. Ellingson, "Multiple exciton generation in semiconductor nanocrystals: Toward efficient solar energy conversion," Laser & Photonics Review, Vol. 2, No. 5, 2008, p. 377.

     Quoting: "Now Victor Klimov and colleagues at the Alamos National Laboratory have designed nanocrystals with cores and shells made from different semiconductor materials in such a way that electrons and holes are physically isolated from each other. The scientists said in such engineered nanocrystals, only one exciton per nanocrystal is required for optical amplification. That, they said, opens the door to practical use in laser applications."  ["Scientists Create New Type of Nanocrystal," PHYSORG.COM, Nanotechnology, May 24, 2007.

     Seo, Hye-won; Tu, Li-wei; Ho, Cheng-ying; Wang, Chang-kong; Lin, Yuan-ting. "Multi-Junction Solar Cell," United States Patent 20080178931, July 31, 2008. A photovoltaic device having multi-junction nanostructures deposited as a multi-layered thin film on a substrate. Preferably, the device is grown as In_xGa_1-xN multi-layered junctions with the gradient x, where x is any value in the range from zero to one. The nanostructures are preferably 5-500 nanometers and more preferably 10-20 nanometers in diameter. The values of x are selected so that the bandgap of each layer is varied from 0.7 eV to 3.4 eV to match as nearly as possible the solar energy spectrum of 0.4 eV-4 eV.

     J. R. Minkel, "Brighter Prospects for Cheap Lasers in Rainbow Colors," Scientific American (website), May 25, 2007.

 

     Quoting Klimov, Victor"     "Carrier multiplication actually relies upon very strong interactions between electrons squeezed within the tiny volume of a nanoscale semiconductor particle. That is why it is the particle size, not its composition that mostly determines the efficiency of the effect. In nanosize crystals, strong electron-electron interactions make a high-energy electron unstable. This electron only exists in its so-called 'virtual state' for an instant before rapidly transforming into a more stable state comprising two or more electrons." [Lead project scientist Victor Klimov, quoted in "Nanocrystals May Provide Boost for Solar Cells, Solar Hydrogen Production," Green Car Congress, 4 Oct., 2008.]

 

 

 

 

 

 

Subject: RE: New Tom Bearden DVD released
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2009 16:31:16 -0400

Dear Anthony,
 
I am an Electrical & Biomedical Engineer who has studied and followed the “Free Energy”, “Gravity Control” and “Parapsychology” fields for over 35 years (read: “paradigm shifted, mind opened”).  As a student of the field, I own copies of and have studied for 30 years, virtually all of Tesla’s patents and articles available to the general public.
 
I’ve purchased and studied many of Tom’s books and the “Energy From the Vacuum” series DVD’s, including the latest “Electrodynamics”.  From my perspective as an Engineer I’d like at this juncture to respectfully offer the following comments/feedback on (specifically) the video series:
 
Although I understand that the general intent is to coalesce information and deliver it; after viewing and digesting the series to-date, I remain somewhat confused as to who the target audience is and what the ultimate intent is (other than obviously revenue-generation).  It seems to me things like paradigm shift, credibility, acceptance, and of course ultimately application of the science should be at the core.  In order to achieve this “core” objective, I would think it better to target us Engineers & Scientists, even though we probably represent an economically unfeasible fraction of the total “audience”.  To explain -
 

1. Frankly, I was disappointed in “Electrodynamics”.  Tom Bearden is a well-educated, well-known & respected pioneer in this area.  However, I found the overall level of both the interviewer’s questions and Tom’s explanations to be elementary, vague and somewhat repetitious.  Perhaps for those who are simply fans of Tom; fine.  But if this subject is as important and fundamental as Tom purports, then I suggest you consider utilizing his talents more effectively.
2. If the intent was to begin an “awareness for the masses” campaign; fine; although I doubt whether the “masses” will ultimately do anything with the information as presented.  Most will likely take only a passing note, or regard it as “entertainment” and ultimately move on.  In any case I would guess the true heart of the subject is over their heads.
3. If the target audience was intended to be “semi-technical” folks, such as those without suitable background attempting to build Bedini devices on their kitchen table (perhaps in order to get on YouTube), then let Tom (and the series) do something useful for them, such as provide enough succinct (read: scripted) detail and direction to ensure they are successful in their efforts.  Insufficient or vague information generally results in dead-ends, delays, disappointment, misdirection and additional misinformation; all of which is multiplied and propagated many-fold on the Web, which only serves to undermine credibility & ultimately delay any real progress at this level.  In any case I don’t believe this audience represents the most effective leverage point.
4. As Stephen Covey recommends for success in any endeavor, “Begin with the end in mind”.  In this case, I believe that is simply “solve the energy and carbon footprint crisis”.  Regardless of background, that is something everyone by now understands (A relevant and relatable goal: “economic recovery”).  Having read Tom’s 2007 paper “Rapid & Decisive Solution..”, I assume his ultimate purpose is to generate enough “proof-positive” public groundswell, such that his (and other’s) theories will ultimately be accepted into our culture as “fact”, allowing genuine progress to be made.

1. Within the public domain, I believe the proper leverage point for this should be bona-fide, well-educated Scientists, Engineers and Technicians.  If the audience was intended to be that; then this DVD should rather serve as the “introduction” to an educational series targeted specifically to us.  That is precisely what I believe is missing from the equation - a formal, rigorous educational program, targeted toward Scientists and/or Engineers.
2. Read between the lines – Tom has already given you the outline: Paradigm shift, fundamental understanding, proof, credibility, acceptance, dissemination / practical realization.  Certainly by now there must be enough prevailing information within the Beardon/Bedini universe to fill in the rest.  Why not a video/book – based stepwise or “modular” learning program that systematically brings one from a baseline of “existing BS/MSEE or equivalent knowledge”, gradually through the above outlined stages.  Integrate “lab work” at key points in the process to codify, cement and otherwise add credibility to the theory.  Such “lab work” could be as simple as the directed assembly and measurement of simple bench models (many such “Bedini kits” are already available on the web).  Through the “bench model” process; successfully connect “expected results and why” with the theory, and you stand a good chance of convincing (and successfully educating) many Engineers.

5. Regarding the John Bedini videos.  It is clear that the intent of the series is to have the “theory” aspect represented by Tom, with John representing “practice”.  While I believe John is credible and is to be more than respected for his body of work; unfortunately the series videos generally do not convey this.  It seems to me that above all else these videos MUST be inherently CREDIBLE.  For many, they will be the only “interface” to this valuable information and your single opportunity to “sell” them.  Again, the existing presentation format may be suitable for casual watching by a “lay person”; but again, in the larger sense I do not believe that is where the maximum leverage point exists.  To be credible to Scientists and Engineers, such demonstrations need to be presented in a more controlled, concise, detailed, and logical format.  What’s missing is essentially context and clarity (read: scripting and preparation).  As is, it is sometimes difficult to ascertain what is being shown or conveyed, and in such cases it is human nature to be left questioning credibility.

 
In summary, it is my opinion that the majority of the videos come across as a “day in the life”, or a “biography” and they need to be much more than that to be effective education tools.  What is needed are true educational videos, targeted and presented at the professional level.  At the same time I want to reiterate my respect the subjects (and their work) as depicted in the videos.
 
Thank you,
 
Paul C