Dear Tom, I have read your commentary with great interest, especially as there is a device already available called Patterson's power cell to prove your claims. I understand from this document that you are an Associate Editor of Scientific American, which should therefore publish your rebuttal. Would it be possible for you to send this direct to Roger Cathey, along with all future messages, for webbing on: www.europa.com/~rsc/physics? I have been webbing all your messages and there is considerable interest in them. Many thanks in advance. Recently, you referred positively to a discussion between Barrett and myself, so perhaps this can be the basis of an article in SA along with interviews of others in the open minded environment? Otherwise SA will be censoring work of the past five years in this area. This would be purposeless because this work is already widely known and read by website, papers and books. To summarize your article for the readers it asserts that classical electrodynamics is basically in error when it assumes that the charge creates energy out of nothingness, which is the classical view of the vacuum. It is postulated by you on the grounds of the Lamb shift and Casimir effect that there is a vacuum flux, which gives up a tiny amount of its energy to a charge or dipole which re-radiates this energy as electromagnetism in observable form, the classical electromagnetic field. Otherwise you assert that energy is created out of nothing, violating the law that energy can neither be created nor destroyed. You argue that the scalar potential is structured, after Whittaker, and that it is possible in principle to extract energy from the vacuum flux in usable form. You identify several basic misconceptions in classical electrodynamics in reply to an article by your co-Editor, Philip Yam, in Sci Am., this month. One of these is the Lorentz condition, another is the U(1) view of electrodynamics as fields physical, potentials arbitrary. You argue correctly in my opinion that the regauging in the conventional U(1) view is an arbitrary process. Most importantly you argue for a major revision in thinking so that energy creating devices are designed with a vast increase in efficiency, and you identify several devices and situations in which this process can be seen to be working in the laboratory. The recent researches of my co workers and myself, and numerous discussions, tend to support many of your arguments. The view that potentials are arbitrary is untenable, and longitudinal field and potential components are allowed in vacuo. These are two examples out of many. I am not at all surprised at the fact that Yam came down on the side of the conservatives in view of my own experience. I am surprised and concerned though, that SA does not allow you a right of reply, even though you are yourself an Associate Editor fully aware of the developments in open minded environments not even consulted by SA. cordially, Myron cc colleagues. FROM: Tebearden, INTERNET:Tebearden@aol.com TO: (unknown), INTERNET:ExplorePub@aol.com CC: (unknown), INTERNET:president@whitehouse.gov (unknown), INTERNET:jian@us0.mayo.edu (unknown), INTERNET:walrod@ime.unicamp.br (unknown), INTERNET:ippoz@eisa.net.au (unknown), INTERNET:gjohnson@ksu.edu (unknown), INTERNET:bscott@metz.une.edu.au (unknown), INTERNET:thornt_m@motsat.sat.mot.com Prof. G. Kalbermann, INTERNET:HOPE@vms.huji.ac.il (unknown), INTERNET:petkell@stc.net (unknown), INTERNET:TCupolo@aol.com (unknown), INTERNET:science@mail.frii.com (unknown), INTERNET:Exec-Sec-Central@hq.doe.gov Alexander S. Labounsky, INTERNET:alexander.s.labounsky@boeing.com Robert G. Flower, INTERNET:chronos@mail.enter.net (unknown), INTERNET:btillman@colsa.com (unknown), INTERNET:jhayes@colsa.com (unknown), INTERNET:NorineWill@aol.com (unknown), INTERNET:aiken@chem.columbia.edu (unknown), INTERNET:henry.monteith@enmu.edu (unknown), INTERNET:shelburne_john@ccmail.ncsc.navy.mil (unknown), INTERNET:JLKenny@aol.com (unknown), INTERNET:Reed15@marshall.edu (unknown), INTERNET:Mhermanns@aol.com Dr Fred Wood, INTERNET:fwood@igc.apc.org Dr Fred Woods Sr., INTERNET:csiri@igc.apc.org (unknown), INTERNET:mps@internetmci.com (unknown), INTERNET:john1@nidlink.com (unknown), INTERNET:randyd@ro.com (unknown), INTERNET:jdecker@keelynet.com (unknown), INTERNET:orbitx@ois.com.au (unknown), INTERNET:Puthoff@aol.com Dr. Terence Barrett, INTERNET:Barrett506@aol.com (unknown), INTERNET:4kenmoore@sprintmail.com (unknown), cliveleach (unknown), steveferguson (unknown), FishnChips (unknown), [70403,3645] DATE: 17/12/97 00:55 Re: Transmission of Commentary on Article Sender: Tebearden@aol.com Received: from imo12.mx.aol.com (imo12.mx.aol.com [198.81.19.166]) by dub-img-8.compuserve.com (8.8.6/8.8.6/2.9) with ESMTP id AAA01197; Wed, 17 Dec 1997 00:54:43 -0500 (EST) From: Tebearden Message-ID: Date: Wed, 17 Dec 1997 00:27:42 EST To: ExplorePub@aol.com Cc: 4kenmoore@sprintmail.com, Barrett506@aol.com, Puthoff@aol.com, cliveleach@compuserve.com, orbitx@ois.com.au, jdecker@keelynet.com, randyd@ro.com, john1@nidlink.com, mps@internetmci.com, csiri@igc.apc.org, fwood@igc.apc.org, Mhermanns@aol.com, Reed15@marshall.edu, JLKenny@aol.com, steveferguson@compuserve.com, shelburne_john@ccmail.ncsc.navy.mil, henry.monteith@enmu.edu, FishnChips@compuserve.com, aiken@chem.columbia.edu, NorineWill@aol.com, jhayes@colsa.com, btillman@colsa.com, chronos@mail.enter.net, alexander.s.labounsky@boeing.com, 70403.3645@compuserve.com, Exec-Sec-Central@hq.doe.gov, science@mail.frii.com, TCupolo@aol.com, petkell@stc.net, HOPE@vms.huji.ac.il, thornt_m@motsat.sat.mot.com, bscott@metz.une.edu.au, gjohnson@ksu.edu, ippoz@eisa.net.au, walrod@ime.unicamp.br, jian@us0.mayo.edu, president@whitehouse.gov Subject: Transmission of Commentary on Article Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com) X-Mailer: Inet_Mail_Out (IMOv11) Dear Chrystyne and Serena, Attached (I hope!) is a Word 97 file containing the commentary on Philip Yam's article in Scientific American. Please let me know if you can download it okay in Word 97 format. Hope you can use it. It's a whole article as well as a review of the Yam article. Yam is actually one of the best science writers in the U.S.. Sadly, this time he blew it. It is odd to see skeptical debate on feasibility of extracting EM energy from the vacuum, when every electrical charge and every dipole is already well-known to do just that. It has been known in particle physics for 40 years -- it just has not made it into electrodynamics yet. What is more bizarre, is that conventional electrodynamicists assume the source charge and dipole to create energy right out of nothing, filling all space around them with field energy and the energy in the potential. In other words, in the absence of vacuum interaction and asymmetry, they continue to assume that the charge and the dipole are perpetual motion machines, violating the most sacrosanct law of physics: energy can neither be created nor destroyed. That "perpetual motion" conundrum, after all, is what they have been beating us few overunity EM systems fellows over the head with for decades. Yet every one of those critics has -- perhaps unwittingly -- been assuming the same thing in spades all these years. It is simply inexplicable that the foundations of Maxwellian electrodynamics can have been so fouled up for so long (over a century), and just continued to be passed along. If you wish, I could also furnish a few illustrations, though that seems a bit strange to add to a commentary review. I have drawings of the bidirectional longitudinal EM wave structure of the "scalar" potential, e.g. Also a nice drawing showing the stupendous Poynting energy flow around a two-wire transmission line, including the little "sheath" that strikes the surface electrons to get diverted into the circuit, powering it. Also a silly little drawing illustrating vividly just how E-field and (phi) potential are really defined in classical electrodynamics. Also the drawings you have formerly used of Lorentz in the sailboat in a wind, and the Lorentz surface integration procedure. Let me know if you do wish illustrations, etc. Have a very fine Christmas! Cheers, Tom