The Tom Bearden
|Subject: RE: Are you the great
T. Bearden??? please reply
Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 18:27:38 -0500
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)
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
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.
"Explanation of the Motionless Electromagnetic Generator by Sachs's Theory
of Electrodynamics," Foundations of Physics Letters, 14(4), 2001, p.
"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,
"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.
"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
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
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
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
"Topological Approaches to Electromagnetism," ," in Modern Nonlinear Optics,
Part 3, Second Edition, Advances in Chemical Physics, Wiley, New York, 2001,
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
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
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
And that is what we are attempting to do, as best we can.
Tom Bearden, Ph.D.
Fellow Emeritus, Alpha Foundation's Institute for Advanced Study
Theoretical Research, Magnetics Energy Limited.
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
I've heard so much "buzz" about the Howard Johnson Motor, the Kawai
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
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.
Georgia Tech EE student