Hi Julian,

Well, I'm Tom Bearden, for whatever that says (which probably depends on who is doing the "saying"!).  I'm also a graduate of Georgia Tech, 1971, M.S.

Nuclear Engineering.  I have worked with four legitimate overunity projects,

all of which produced overunity EM systems.  All exhibited certain novel

phenomena, and all had or have at least one section and function which

violates classical equilibrium thermodynamics and classical electrical

engineering theory.  However, none of them violated physics, the

conservation of energy law, or the thermodynamics of open systems far from

equilibrium in their energetic exchange with an active environment.  All of

them, however, did reveal certain phenomena that definitely are not in the

normal electrical engineering curriculum, and even some phenomena that are

very rare in physics itself, though actually present and known in a small

area.  Some of those "extremely unnoticed" phenomena are still proprietary,

since a colleague and I have filed a process patent involving their usage.

However, my forthcoming book in 2002, to be published by World Scientific,

will cover that startling phenomenology also.  It is as easy to produce

negative energy as it is positive energy, if the system is in fact

overunity, and thus such a system presenting a mix of the two also presents

special problems.  As a simple example, a calorimeter cannot be used

dependably for measurement of such a mix, because it will measure the effect

of the difference, between the positive energy that heats the liquid and the

negative energy that simultaneously cools it.  The patent application of my

colleague and I deals with the process for handling that mix situation, and

in fact of transforming the negative energy to positive energy to be used in

excess power to the system.  Again, what we are speaking of does obscurely

exist in physics, and it is proven, but just little known.  But we will

release the entire gist of it next year, after we have had time to file our

foreign patent applications.

There are five of us in the motionless electromagnetic generator (MEG)

project together, and I am not the major inventor.  We do presently have a

working overunity laboratory experiment.  So do several other folks I'm

working with privately as well.

With the patent laws what they are today, no small inventor group will do

what you are suggesting unless they are total fools.  As an example, we have

filed two patent applications, will be filing a couple more, and there is no

such permissible thing as a "public demonstration" in any detail until (1)

one's patents are granted in the U.S., and (2) until one also files and is

granted his foreign patents.  That is, unless one wishes to void his

intellectual property rights and have them pass into public domain.  Georgia

Tech itself would guard any invention of its own quite rigorously, in

similar fashion, until those actions were completed.  Every technical

university out there already does that.  If a court case presently pending

on appeal to the Supreme Court is upheld, then in the future any invention

will be easily "sidestepped" by adding an additional coil or any such simple

procedure.  So just now all small inventors are extremely cautious if they

have any sense at all. The slightest error, and years of work and effort can

be thrown away in a twinkling.

Neither I nor any other inventor has to prove COP>1.0 electrical systems!

Physics proved it long ago, but it has just not been permitted to be added

to electrical engineering.  As an example, the Bohren experiment produces

COP = 18, and the nonlinear optical lab there at Georgia Tech can do that

experiment anytime they wish.  It's not a power system, of course, but as an

"energy transduction process" the experiment outputs 18 times as much energy

as one inputs by normal calculations.  We long since explained the effect in

several papers.  The prevailing explanation used by particle physics is that

the excess energy is absorbed from the vacuum.  I simply explained it in

terms of the two components of energy flow: the normal diverged Poynting

component, and the long ago arbitrarily discarded nondiverged component.  I

also nominated that arbitrarily discarded nondiverged component as the

energy that is producing the excess gravity that holds the spiral galaxy

arms together.  Another component of energy flow (the negative energy

component) I nominated as the source of the antigravity that is accelerating

the expansion of the universe, now experimentally established.

Two scientists discovered what today we call "the flow of EM energy through

space".  They were Heaviside and Poynting, who discovered it simultaneously

and independently.  Heaviside's theory is superior to that of Poynting,

since Poynting never considered anything but the component of energy flow in

space around a circuit that enters the conductors and powers the circuit.

Heaviside, on the other hand, discovered not only that Poynting intercepted

and diverged component, but also the rather enormous component that does not

get intercepted and diverged, but just wasted.  Go back and read the

original papers; you have only been taught Poynting's subset of the

available energy flow, particularly after Lorentz deliberately discarded the

nondiverged Heaviside component because no one could explain the source of

this startling amount of energy flow.  And Lorentz was not about to be

called a perpetual motion nut, or accused of violating the conservation of

energy law.  You were taught Lorentz's little integration trick of

integrating the energy flow vector around a closed surface assumed

surrounding any volume element of interest.  That procedure discards the

nondiverged energy flow component, regardless of how large, and retains only

the Poynting diverged component.  Since that is the component that enters

the circuit, it will also be what is dissipated from the circuit.  So our

measurements of the circuit -- which are measurements of what is dissipated

from the circuit -- will agree with Poynting's component.  After all, what

is dissipated from a source-free circuit, has to enter it first!

It is a rare professor who has actually read the original Heaviside papers

and the original Poynting papers, or the original Lorentz papers.  Read them

and see for yourself, by comparing them to what is in your text, or what is

"said about them".

Here was Lorentz's problem!  If the nondiverged Heaviside "extra" component

is taken into account, then from the terminals of every generator ever

built, and from every battery ever built, there pours forth far more energy

than is input mechanically to the shaft of the generator or that is

dissipated as chemical energy in the battery.  That is true, and as an

energy converter every dipolar system we ever built was already an overunity

system, where its COP>>1.0.  All of them still are today, if we appreciate

what Lorentz taught us to arbitrarily leave out of our accounting.

Well, that should not be surprising, because every charge and every dipole

also pours out EM energy in 3-space unceasingly, with absolutely no EM

energy input in 3-space. Unless we wish to discard the conservation of

energy law altogether, then we must look for the EM energy furnished to the

charge and to the dipole from the time-domain (from the fourth Minkowski

axis), because that is the only place left in Minkowski 4-space.  They did

not teach you in electrical engineering how to look for that absolutely

required EM energy input. But it is there, in both quantum field theory and

particle physics, if we but look for it.  It is there also, in Whittaker's

1903 decomposition of the scalar potential, if we reinterpret it correctly

(he interpreted both waves in his phase conjugate pair after interaction and

as the effects of outputs of charges, so one must reinterpret where a phase

conjugate wave exists prior to interaction with charge).

The small inventor or small inventor group  is under a rigorous problem of

trying to get the necessary backing and funding to go forward, without just

giving away his invention.  Understand, this is the law of the land, not

necessarily my own person preference.  Every time we demonstrate (under

rigorous nondisclosure and also noncircumvention -- which, by the way,

universities will not sign) the MEG to substantial investment groups, they

have scientific research groups perform  their "do diligence" upon us, which

includes a full scientific and technical assessment.  We pass that on the

front end, or the financial groups do not come to the demo.  Simple as that.

The process we utilize -- the Aharonov-Bohm effect -- is not present in

classical electrodynamics used in electrical engineering.  It is present

since 1959 in physics, and there are now over 2,000 papers on it, hundreds

of experimental proofs, etc.  Simply put, this is what happens.  We use a

special core material which has a unique capability: it receives and retains

the B-field flux from a permanent magnet, totally within the closed flux

path, so that even right on the poles of the powerful magnet you can measure

only a very tiny bit of "leakage" magnetic B-field.  The Aharonov-Bohm

effect therefore applies.  In space surrounding that core -- the space that

would normally be filled with B-field and B-field energy --- the spacetime

is still curved (that's totally from the action of the magnetic dipole,

which still exists unperturbed).  So it still has as much energy as the

B-field there would normally have had.  However, the AB effect tells us it

is in the form of magnetic vector potential, which it is.  But since it's a

vector potential, it is dynamic and not static, and it is flowing energy.

So right away, merely by placing the magnet into the core and in very good

fit and contact, we now have all the B-field energy we would normally have

around the magnet, but confined to the core material.  In addition, we have

this excess EM energy that has now appeared in surrounding space, that is

uncurled magnetic vector potential energy.

So we have more energy than we started with in this immediate local area.

My question is:  From whence comes the extra energy?   And how?   That is

not in your normal electrical engineering, which already erroneously assumes

a flat local spacetime (we have violated that assumption, therefore we have

permissibly violated the EE model) and also assumes a local vacuum (the

broken symmetry of the magnetic dipole alone assures us that we have

permissibly violated the EE model here also).  So we have a system that is

now in disequilibrium with (1) the local curvatures of spacetime, and (2)

the local vacuum energy exchange.   This system is not within the current

electrical engineering model, because the two most primary assumptions of

that model have been violated deliberately.   However, higher symmetry

electrodynamics such as O(3) does include the necessary modeling, and can be

used to analyze the situation.  Vector and tensor U(1) electrodynamics

cannot be used and do not apply.  This is rigorous; if this is not

understood, then go no farther because everything we do will remain

incomprehensible (from the U(1) viewpoint). It is perfectly comprehensible

in terms of the proper non-Abelian, higher symmetry electrodynamics.  But

you wind up in a unified field theory, and one which is a subset of Sachs'

unified field theory.  Electrical engineering has not been taken to those

lengths, at least since Gabriel Kron's work prior to WW II and after.  You

will be fortunate if Kron's work is even mentioned in your EE classes.

We have also deliberately violated classical equilibrium thermodynamics,

since it applies only to systems in equilibrium or so close to it that their

tiny disequilibrium can be neglected.  Instead, the thermodynamics of open

dissipative systems applies.  Prigogine was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1977

for his contributions to that very type of thermodynamics.  In such open

dissipative systems in disequilibrium with an active environment, in this

case the active local vacuum and the active local curvatures of spacetime,

the system is permitted to perform five "magic" functions that your own

professors taught you were "against the laws of thermodynamics".  They

forgot to clarify that these functions are only prohibited in one kind of

thermodynamics, that of systems under equilibrium conditions with their

environment.   The five magic functions are: The system is permitted to (1)

self-order (which means freely regauge and take on additional potential

energy a priori), (2) self-oscillate or self-rotate, (3) output more energy

than the operator must himself input (the excess energy is freely received

from the active environment), (4) power itself and its load simultaneously

(all the energy is freely received from the active environment), and (5)

exhibit negentropy.

Every charge and dipole already does those five functions.  Since the active

energy in any electrical power system comes from its source charges (which

includes the source charges in the dipoles), and that energy comes freely

from the active broken symmetry of the charge and the dipole with their

active environment, it follows that macrosystem assemblies using such

charges and dipoles and their dipoles are in fact receiving all their

3-space EM energy from their environment!  Not from the shaft of the

generator, or the chemical energy in the battery!  It also follows that at

least in theory it is possible to have a macrosystem with proper engineering

which will perform those same five functions that every charge and dipole in

it is already performing, all the time.

That is not what they taught you at all, in electrical engineering.  But it

is true nonetheless, and it is rigorous, and the science for it is already

in the hard scientific literature.  It is not in the hard electrical

engineering literature!  But neither is the Aharonov-Bohm effect's

explanation and theory.  There are hordes of electromagnetic things in

physics, that are not in electrical engineering which is only a small subset

of physics, and a very old and archaic subset at that.

In electrical engineering, your professors already teach you at best a gross

approximation useful for COP<1.0 systems, and at worst a terribly flawed

discipline already partially falsified in advanced physics.  In 1956, Lee

and Yang strongly predicted broken symmetry; in early 1957 Wu and her

colleagues proved it experimentally, including the broken symmetry of unlike

charges (such as a dipole).  So profound a change was that to physics, that

Lee and Yang were awarded the Nobel Prize the very same year, 1957.  The

broken symmetry of a dipole means that, once the dipole is formed, forever

thereafter -- if one just lets it sit there and "fixes it" so it will not be

destroyed -- pour out EM energy in 3-space in all directions.  This is no

problem in particle physics; here the physicist recognizes (and it is proven

both experimentally and theoretically) that any charge or dipole

continuously absorbs virtual photon energy from the seething vacuum.

Further, the definition of "broken symmetry" means that some of this

absorbed energy is not re-emitted back to the vacuum as virtual photons, but

is integrated into observable photon energy and re-emitted in 3-space as

real, observable, EM energy.  Now any professor who does not understand

that, does not understand the physics of charges.  Period.  It is not up to

me to "prove" something long proven, well-known, and with Nobel Prize(s)

already awarded!  It is up to the professor to read the literature and learn

something, or to ignore it and teach dogma.

There are more kinds of electrodynamics than one!  The Abelian U(1)

electrodynamics used in electrical engineering has already long since been

found inadequate for many things in particle physics.  It's 136 years old --

have you ever read Maxwell's original seminal 1865 paper, where he lists the

20 equations in 20 unknowns?  And it's in quaternion-like mathematics?  You

ought to read it, if for nothing else to find out that you have not been

taught "Maxwell's theory" at all, but only Heaviside's severe vector

curtailment of it (modern tensors do not add back all that was omitted!).

And even that, was further curtailed by Lorentz, who symmetrically regauged

the Maxwell-Heaviside equations to make them "easier to solve".  They should

be easier to solve!  Lorentz regauging discarded all Maxwell-Heaviside

systems permitted to be in disequilibrium exchange with their active

environment -- that active vacuum of particle physics, and that curved local

spacetime of general relativity.  "Symmetry" -- such as the Lorentz

symmetrical regauging -- implies "where the conservation laws are enforced

and applied".  And you cannot have "symmetry" of just the observables,

because a priori any observable involves broken symmetry.   The "symmetry"

can only be had between the active physical system (say, the electrical

power system) and its active environment (the "supersystem").  Once Lorentz

applied that symmetrical regauging, he ARBITRARILY selected only that subset

of Maxwell-Heaviside equations that is in (forced) equilibrium with its

active environment.  He discarded all those systems in disequilibrium with

their active vacuum and curved spacetime environment.

So yes, electrical engineering teaches and applies only a small subset of

Maxwellian system engineering and theory.

Every charge and every dipole already totally violates the electrical

engineering that Georgia Tech teaches, and that every university in America

teaches.  You have not studied or been taught Maxwell's theory at all; what

is bluntly called "Maxwell's theory" in your textbook is a Heaviside/Lorentz

subset.  Not the entire theory at all.  Every charge and dipole in the

universe already grossly violates the very "Maxwellian" subset theory you

were taught, and that the university is teaching in electrical engineering.

In science, there is a rule that one must read the literature.  And that

includes the physics literature, since EE and electrodynamics are subsets of

physics.

That such a mess has been defended so long, is a sad commentary on U.S.

science and Western science in general.  Particularly when some other

nations of the world have weaponized the higher symmetry electrodynamics

already in the textbooks (in physics, not in electrical engineering).  I

followed some of those developments for a long time, published pictures of

the actual strike of such a weapon offset from a U.S. shuttle launch, etc.

This is a real subject, the weapons are real, and the continued refusal of

the U.S. scientific community to turn to higher symmetry EM is a mockery of

our defense capability.  As an example, the pioneers of ultrawideband

radar -- such as Barrett and Harmuth -- were severely attacked, slandered,

libeled, and pummeled for their audacity.  At the very time of the tirade

against them, one could purchase on the commercial market a little UWB radar

that was used to detect voids, such as in the earth or in thickly poured

concrete structures.  Of course, Barrett and Harmuth and the others were

correct and the U.S. electrical engineering and radar engineering

communities were flat wrong.  After finally winning the battle after an

enormous struggle, Barrett and Harmuth and the others were vindicated.  And

an eerie thing then happened.  Some of the prominent scientists so deadest

against the UWB project and process, today have become known as "Mr.

Ultrawideband Radar".  How times changed!  Nobody ever apologized to Harmuth

and Barrett et al.

Contrary to what is implied in university, science does not progress by

sweet reason, but by a cur dog fight between entrenched interests and

radical new notions.  Understand, many radical new notions are wrong; just

to be radical and new does not guaranteed truth or "fit" to experiment.

Anyway, working with the AIAS, we also have had to defend vigorously against

the charges of "perpetual motion" and "nonsense", in the referee process at

leading journals.  We have successfully held the day, and we have rigorous

papers already published in leading journals, explaining how the motionless

electromagnetic generator works.  Here are some relevant papers, dealing

with the MEG (two) and others dealing with the rigorous higher symmetry EM

basis for extracting EM energy from the vacuum.  They are:

---

M.W. Evans, P.K. Anastasovski, T.E. Bearden et al., (15 authors):

"Explanation of the Motionless Electromagnetic Generator with O(3)

Electrodynamics," Foundations of Physics Letters, 14(1), Feb. 2001, p.

87-94.

"Explanation of the Motionless Electromagnetic Generator by Sachs's Theory

of Electrodynamics," Foundations of Physics Letters, 14(4), 2001, p.

387-393.

"Anti-Gravity Effects in the Sachs Theory of Electrodynamics," Foundations

of Physics Letters, 2001 (in press).

"Operator Derivation of the Gauge Invariant Proca and Lehnert Equation:

Elimination of the Lorentz Condition," Foundations of Physics, 39(7), 2000,

p. 1123-1130.

"Effect of Vacuum Energy on the Atomic Spectra," Foundations of Physics

Letters, 13(3), June 2000, p. 289-296.

"Runaway Solutions of the Lehnert Equations: The Possibility of Extracting

Energy from the Vacuum," Optik, 111(9), 2000, p. 407-409.

"Classical Electrodynamics Without the Lorentz Condition: Extracting Energy

from the Vacuum," Physica Scripta 61(5), May 2000, p. 513-517.

"On the Representation of the Maxwell-Heaviside Equations in Terms of the

Barut Field Four-Vector," Optik 111(6), 2000, p. 246-248.

"Interferometry in Higher Symmetry Forms of Electrodynamics and Physical

Optics," Physica Scripta, 61(1), Jan. 2000, p. 79-82.

"Inconsistencies in the U(1) Theory of Electrodynamics: Stress Energy

Momentum Tensor," Foundations of Physics Letters, 12(2), Apr. 1999, p.

187-192.

"Self-Inconsistencies of the U(1) Theory of Electrodynamics: Michelson

Interferometry," Found. Phys. Lett., 12(6), Dec. 1999, p. 579-584.

"Equations of the Yang-Mills Theory of Classical Electrodynamics," Optik,

111(2), 2000, p. 53-56.

"Derivation of the B(3) Field and Concomitant Vacuum Energy Density from the

Sachs Theory of Electrodynamics," Found. Phys. Lett., 2001 (in press).

"The New Maxwell Electrodynamic Equations: New Tools for New Technologies.

A collection of 60 Papers from the Alpha Foundation's Institute for Advanced

Study."  Published as a Special Issue of the Journal of New Energy, 4(3),

Winter 1999.  335 p.

 

Here are some papers in press, a few published, etc. that also bear on the

overunity problem of extracting useful EM energy from the active vacuum and

from locally curved spacetime.

"O(3) Electrodynamics," a review of 250 pages in Modern Nonlinear Optics,

Part 2, Second Edition, Advances in Chemical Physics, Wiley, New York, 2001,

in press, vol. 119, Edited by Myron W. Evans. Series Editors I. Prigogine

and Stuart A. Rice.  ISBN 0-471-38931-5.   Preprint of sections available on

U.S. DOE website http://www.ott.doe.gov/electromagnetic/.  This is the

second edition of M. W. Evans and S. Kielich (eds.), Modern Nonlinear

Optics, a special topical issue of I. Prigogine and S. A. Rice (series

eds.), Advances in Chemical Physics, Wiley, New York, 1992, 1993, 1997

(softback), Vol. 85, of which vol. 85(2) contains material on B(3).

M. W. Evans, "The Link Between The Sachs and O(3) Theories of

Electrodynamics," 26 pages, in Modern Nonlinear Optics, Part 2, Second

Edition, Advances in Chemical Physics, Wiley, New York, 2001, in press.

T. E. Bearden, "Extracting and Using Electromagnetic Energy from the Active

Vacuum," in Modern Nonlinear Optics, Part 2, Second Edition, Advances in

Chemical Physics, Wiley, New York, 2001, in press, vol. 119, Edited by Myron

W. Evans. Series Editors I. Prigogine and Stuart A. Rice.  ISBN

0-471-38931-5.

T. E. Bearden, "Energy from the Active Vacuum: The Motionless

Electromagnetic Generator," in Modern Nonlinear Optics, Part 2, Second

Edition, Advances in Chemical Physics, Wiley, New York, 2001, in press.

M. W. Evans, "Link Between the Topological Theory of Ranada and Trueba, the

Sachs Theory, and O(3) Electrodynamics," in Modern Nonlinear Optics, Part 2,

Second Edition, Advances in Chemical Physics, Wiley, New York, 2001, in

press.

Hal Fox, "Energy for the Future: High Density Charge Clusters," in Modern

Nonlinear Optics, Part 2, Second Edition, Advances in Chemical Physics,

Wiley, New York, 2001, in press.

Mendel Sachs, "Symmetry in Electrodynamics: From Special to General

Relativity, Macro to Quantum Domains," in Modern Nonlinear Optics, Part 1,

Second Edition, Advances in Chemical Physics, Wiley, New York, 2001, in

press.

B. Lehnert, "Optical Effects of an Extended Electromagnetic Theory," in

Modern Nonlinear Optics, Part 2, Second Edition, Advances in Chemical

Physics, Wiley, New York, 2001, in press.

Lawrence B. Crowell, "Non-Abelian Electrodynamics: Progress and Problems,"

in Modern Nonlinear Optics, Part 3, Second Edition, Advances in Chemical

Physics, Wiley, New York, 2001, in press.

S. Jeffers, J.-P. Vigier, and M. W. Evans, "Current Status of the Quantum

Theory of Light," in Modern Nonlinear Optics, Part 2, Second Edition,

Advances in Chemical Physics, Wiley, New York, 2001, in press.

"The Superluminal Theory and Effects," in Modern Nonlinear Optics, Part 3,

Second Edition, Advances in Chemical Physics, Wiley, New York, 2001, in

press.

"Topological Approaches to Electromagnetism," ," in Modern Nonlinear Optics,

Part 3, Second Edition, Advances in Chemical Physics, Wiley, New York, 2001,

in press.

T. E. Bearden, Energy from the Vacuum: Concepts and Principles, World

Scientific, Singapore, 2002 (in preparation).

T. E. Bearden, "Bedini's Method For Forming Negative Resistors In

Batteries," Journal of New Energy, 5(1), Summer 2000, p. 24-38.

T. E. Bearden, "Dark Matter or Dark Energy?", Journal of New Energy, 4(4),

Spring 2000, p. 4-11.

---

Meanwhile, our own small group (with the MEG) has made a joint venture

arrangement with the National Materials Science laboratory of the National

Academy of Sciences of a friendly foreign nation, to do the remainder of the

research required on the MEG, and to have the first 2 KW units ready for

commercial market in one year.  Our plan is very simple: Develop the

commercial units and produce them for the world market.  That is now going

forward.  At that National Academy of Sciences, we were very pleased to

discover that their scientists already were familiar with and used higher

symmetry electrodynamics, and in fact are teaching it in their schools now

for more than a dozen years.  Here we found no difficulty at all in

comprehending the active vacuum exchange with the system, how the system can

extract and use electrical energy from that vacuum, etc.   On the other

hand, in the U.S. our experience is that we usually are in discussions with

electrical power engineers, who very frankly do not know much physics, and

are totally inadequate to either understand or tackle such a project.

Anyway, we share what we can with young readers, and always with the proviso

that, if it is useful to the reader, then fine, for that is its intended

purpose.  If it is not usable to the reader, then by all means we urge him

or her to just file it in file 13 and go his or her own way.  We are not

interested in "debates" and such nonsense, which are a waste of time if one

wishes to get anything useful done.  We will sink or swim by whether or not

we succeed in getting an overunity system developed and on the market.  That

of course we have to do.  But I remind you of the terrible onslaught that

Ovshinsky experienced with his amorphous semiconductors, which also were

"against the laws of nature, as every idiot knew!"  Finally Ovshinsky

received Japanese funding (our own U.S. scientists knew it was at best a

misunderstanding on Ovshinsky's part, and at worst a fraud).  Then our

pundits awoke one fine day to find several thousand copy machines working

quite well with Ovshinsky amorphous semiconductors in them.  The Japanese

have happily continued to reap benefits from the sale of Ovshinsky amorphous

semiconductors that our scientific community vehemently attacked and

condemned.  Any historian of science can give you another hundred such

examples.

The papers we cite are not "buzz", as you can see for yourself by reading

them in the journals where they are published.  Neither is the Bohren

experiment, the broken symmetry of a charge and dipole, and EM energy from

the vacuum.  Nobel Prizes have been awarded in such areas related to

overunity systems already, and it is not our task to reprove what the Nobel

Committee rigorously investigated and what is already established

experimentally in well-known physics.  That is it not known in the

electrical engineering curriculum is immaterial; neither were Ovshinsky's

amorphous semiconductors.

Getting our universities to actually realize and use the physics that is

already proven and available, is quite another matter.  Fortunately, that is

not my task.  My task is to make available enough legitimate physics

information for the informed reader to make up his or her own mind, and then

do his or her own reading of the literature cited and --- if so inclined --

to start thinking about his or her own experimental work.  I simply wish

them to start with what it required me 30 years of painful effort to

discover was already in physics, and then go forward.  My work is an old dog

trying to communicate what he painfully learned, so that those who continue

do not have to painfully rediscover those "wheels", but can just go forward

from there.

And that is what we are attempting to do, as best we can.

Best wishes,

Tom Bearden, Ph.D.

Fellow Emeritus, Alpha Foundation's Institute for Advanced Study

Theoretical Research, Magnetics Energy Limited.

---

From: Julian

Sent: Friday, August 31, 2001 1:43 PM

Subject: Are you the great T. Bearden??? please reply

You probably get many e-mails.  So I'll make this short.

I am an Electrical Engineering student at the Georgia Institute of

Technology.

I've heard so much "buzz" about the Howard Johnson Motor, the Kawai

Process...etc.

1.      Do you, personally, have a working OU device?

2.      Would you be willing to bring such a device, or other proof, to a

college campus in order to debate with a bunch of old professors (i.e. the established scientific community)?

I would be able to organize funds in order to pay for such an event, if it

were guaranteed that you had a working device.  There's no way they could turn

down someone of your proven credibility (CEO having PhD, former army officer

etc.)

I see this as the quickest and easiest way to shake the foundations

of science and reveal great truths which for too long we have ignored.

Julian

Georgia Tech EE student