Dr Alex Labounsky, Principal Engineer, Boeing, Dear Dr. Labounsky, I responded to the HP and Westinghouse involvement as described by Tom Bearden below. I have sent several messages to Secretary Pena in support of Bearden's ideas, for the simple reason that they are logically irrefutable. It is obvious that if there is the slightest chance of them working then the rewards would be as he has described, enormous. The scientific method is always the same, a hypothesis is tested against experimental data. It is not valid to reject a self consistent hypothesis without experimentation. Bearden correctly challenges the received view of the Lorentz gauge, for example, and many agree with him. Therefore companies should take him very seriously, because he leads a group of experienced electrical engineers as you know. In physics, the idea of B(3) is logically irrefutable, as given by non Abelian gauge field theory of the Yang Mills type in an O(3) = SU(2) gauge. In the standard model, B(3) =? 0 and only transverse waves are allowed in vacuo. In the standard model electrodynamics is a linear, Abelian theory. Non-linear optical effects are described phenomenologically (see "Modern Nonlinear Optics") in the U(1) gauge theory. Not so in higher symmetry gauge theories. The present standard model uses U(1) as the symmetry of the electrodynamical sector. The Alpha Foundation recently received major funding for this type of work, so I think that the Bearden work should receive major funding from far sighted corporations in the US and elsewhere. I am impressed by his grasp of concepts, and so are many others. In my opinion it is unfortunate that so much of modern physics is torn apart by rather unscientific behaviour. It seems to me that many of the fellows who make most noise never enter a laboratory or do a calculation. The incidents at Univ. of North Carolina, Charlotte, where I was a tenured full professor, have been widely condemened internationally, not least by the great Vigier himself, in public at an international conference. I am now well established as a private scholar and presidium member of the Alpha Foundation, whose President, Milan Meszaros, has won many recent international awards for science leadership from the US and Britain. I was invited this year at Meszaros' suggestion to the Marquis Who's Who in the World. This occurred AFTER the UNCC fiasco of 1995. My position is simple, if someone has a good idea, with huge potential benefits, then try it out to see if it works. Thomas Jefferson would have approved and as you know, he became a College President himself, in his native Virginia. In order to try out Bearden's ideas, a minimum amount of funding is needed, and it is a straightforward matter for industry to supply this for much needed experiments. I have in mind the inventor of radio and the talkies, Grindell Mathews, who once went to Lord Fisher (First Lord of the Admiralty) and got everything he needed on the spot. Fisher cut through all the inertia like a Dreadnought and castigated his inferiors for their slowness at a time when shipping was being decimated. Better try anything than nothing. It seems to me that if Bearden is right, or even if there is the smallest chance that he is right, we need to do a Fisher. It is extremely unfortunate that over-unity has become mixed up with ideas of perpetual motion and non-conservation of energy. Classical electrodynamics is full of holes, and would sink if it were not beached already. Since Maxwell Lorentz does not conserve Newton Number Three, it, classical electrodynamics, is not in accord with conservation of momentum, and so violates Noether's Theorem i.e. violates energy momentum conservation. Like UNCC, the standard model simply goes on covering it all up. I am an EEC Citizen and only a resident alien of the US, but can see the sincerity in Bearden's messages. To dismiss these out of hand, as some people have apparently been doing, is a grave injustice as you know. MWE cc colleagues. ------------------------------------------- FROM: "Labounsky, Alex", INTERNET:labounsky#m#_alex@strasys.mdc.com TO: Dr. T. E. Bearden, INTERNET:tebearden@aol.com CC: (unknown), INTERNET:4kenmoore@sprintmail.com (unknown), FishnChips DATE: 22/12/97 20:47 Re: HP's Involvement Sender: labounsky#m#_alex@strasys.mdc.com Received: from abyss.mdc.com (ABYSS.LGB.CAL.BOEING.COM [129.200.223.1]) by hil-img-4.compuserve.com (8.8.6/8.8.6/2.9) with ESMTP id UAA29644 for ; Mon, 22 Dec 1997 20:47:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from strasys.mdc.com (STRASYS.MDC.COM [129.200.221.9]) by abyss.mdc.com (8.7.6/8.7.3/CNS-4.0) with SMTP id RAA28400; Mon, 22 Dec 1997 17:45:58 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: Date: 22 Dec 1997 17:45:29 U Priority: Urgent From: "Labounsky, Alex" Return-Receipt-To: "Labounsky, Alex" Subject: HP's Involvement To: tebearden@aol.com Cc: 4kenmoore@sprintmail.com, FishnChips@compuserve.com X-Mailer: Mail*Link SMTP for Quarterdeck Mail; Version 4.0.0 Tom, Thanks for telling us (below) what you know of HP's interest in or involvement in asymmetrical gauging and COP>1 developments. In response to the email I got from Dr. Evans (as copied below), I emailed back to him my request (as copied below) for whatever details Dr. Evan's is aware of relative to HP's interest. LET US HOPE THAT DR. EVANS WILL FILL US IN ON WHAT HE KNOWS VIS-A-VIS HP! PLEASE IDENTIFY THE SOURCE REFERENCES (LIBRARY MAGAZINES, BOOKS, DOCS, ETC. OR INTERNET WEB ADDRESSES) OR EMAIL ME ELECTRONIC COPIES OF OR PROVIDE MORE DETAILS ON: 1. J. Decker and HP's feedforward and feedback "ping pong" (self-targeting) in arrays of transistors. 2. Westinghouse Minuteman COP>1 devices. Thanks, Alex -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To: 4kenmoore@sprintmail.com@slsmtp Cc: JLKenny@aol.com@slsmtp; jhayes@colsa.com@slsmtp; btillman@colsa.com@slsmtp; mps@internetmci.com@slsmtp; csiri@igc.apc.org@slsmtp; fwood@igc.apc.org@slsmtp; Mhermanns@aol.com@slsmtp; shelburne_john@ccmail.ncsc.navy.mil@slsmtp; fsmart@tarapublishing.com@slsmtp; hpb@HiWAAY.net@slsmtp; 70403.3645@compuserve.com@slsmtp; science@mail.frii.com@slsmtp; alexander.s.labounsky@boeing.com@slsmtp; FishnChips@compuserve.com@slsmtp; chronos@mail.enter.net@slsmtp Enclosure: enclosure number 1 Ken, I am completely overwhelmed by Dr. Evans' praise for my feeble efforts, which as you know are primarily conceptual with minimal mathematical manipulation. I am also deeply appreciative, literally beyond words. Dr. Evans is a great scientist of the very first rank, with over 500 papers in the refereed literature, and he is editor in chief of some important strong scientific book series, particularly on the nature of the photon. Along with others such as Barrett, Dr. Evans is the founder of a fundamental new extension to physics, the existence (nonzero) of the B(3) gauge. B(3) gauge theory may prove to be the most important thing to come along since relativity. Dr. Evans himself has paid a personal price for his courage in extending important scientific knowledge "against the standard grain." The B(3) gauge overturns some of the most fixed and cherished beliefs in the present standard model. It simply means that physics will have to be revised and extended, and Dr. Evans is in the forefront of that new physics, ushering it in. Presently I'm unaware of the extent, if any, that Hewlett Packard is looking at things. I do know that several scientists from Hewlett Packard have downloaded the lengthy technical comments I wrote in support of Fogal's charge-barrier semiconductor. That document was posted on Gary Hawks' web site, along with an initial technical glossary. The only other possible connection I'm aware of was my recent technical comment back to J. Decker on a purported discovery by Hewlett Packard of feedforward and feedback "ping pong" (self-targeting) in arrays of transistors, that Jerry had posted on his Keelynet. The unsubstantiated report stated that excess energy was freely and easily obtained by this Hewlett Packard development, but that the scientists were baffled as to the mechanism producing the excess energy. So I sent Jerry a technical explanation of the effect, (which I assume he placed on the Keely net) and the fact that Westinghouse actually placed a frequency converter in the Minuteman missile some years ago that exhibited the effect. I still have some files on my investigation of the Westinghouse incident. However, Westinghouse merely limited the converter output so that its purported 115% COP was reduced to 95%, and everyone was happy. I also explained to Jerry that we, CTEC, had exploded transistors into foot-diameter fireballs as early as 1990, but lacked the facilities and financial capability to bring the effects under control. However, we did understand the mechanism generating all the excess energy. Personally I have had no contact with Hewlett Packard directly, so am unable to comment further than the above. It would be very nice, however, if they were investigating those effects. It would also be nice if they read the writeup I sent to Jerry on the probable mechanism for their purported overunity results, assuming that the unsubstantiated report was true. As you know, we need a real breakthrough in overunity Maxwellian systems, in the hard science and engineering area, and by a large and powerful company. The first such breakthrough will, I believe, initiate the entire field. Even with processes demonstrated such as the Lawandy lasing without population inversion, Patterson's power cell(R) work, and the highly anomalous fiber fuse, officialdom has hardly bent one millimeter from its rigid position that overunity Maxwellian systems are prohibited by the laws of nature, physics, and thermodynamics. Indeed they are not, but still we have to convince some portion of the hard science community if we are ever to have a legitimate field. But it only takes one white crow to prove that not all crows are black. It also helps if that white crow is produced by someone powerful enough to insure that this white crow doesn't just disappear into the sunset, but endures. The first formal replication of the white crow then proves conclusively that it is for real, and not a one-time fluke. Let's hope that Hewlett Packard does have something going of the nature mentioned in the unsubstantiated report. If so, then certainly they have the financial resources to see it through and initiate the entire field. Tom -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mail*Link SMTP for Labounsky, Alex To: FishnChips@compuserve.com Cc: 4kenmoore@sprintmail.com; tebearden@aol.com From: Labounsky, Alex Date: Mon, Dec 22, 1997 1:51 PM Subject: Hewlett Packard Dear Dr. Evans, As I'm a practicing EE in industry, I guess I'm supposed to know the answer already, but I'm really out of pocket on this one! So, just what do you mean about Hewlett Packard taking an objective and open-minded look at the writings from Tom Bearden and others? I'd appreciate any facts and details about HP's involvement you can share with me. If that is all true, very good! Thanks, Alex -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To Colleagues on First and Second Science Groups, I think that my own small contributions pale in comparison with the efforts by the Bearden group, and it is an honor to place this work on the website, due to the generosity of Roger Cathey. It is www.europa.com/~rsc/physics At the very least, these theories should be looked at objectively and open-mindedly, as Hewlett Packard seems to be doing now. MWE cc science groups and others. ============================================================