The members of these relevant lists will receive this post with To: field
addressees for those interested to collaborate by email on ideas referenced
in below compilation relevant these 3 lists, archived post email redacted at:

1) Compiled Research reports and results since August 2001 regarding new
Advanced Energy Technologies genre to replace nuclear and fossil fuel power
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/New-Energy-Solutions

2) Related list, some overlapping posts, Science and Technology in Society and
Public Policy group archives public posts of information to impact public policy
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dcwilliams

3) New list, this first post to it for the historical record of origin and start
of
Global Powers Consortium list to implement Advanced Energy Technologies
via collaborations at this public archive group list for news media, investors,
collaborators in business or science, networkers, academia, intelligent folks.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Global-Powers-Consortium


This is an historic compilation of posts in any case because it represents
the first public release here of acknowledgement of inter-relationship
between the electrical engineering "theoretics" behind the Motionless
Electromagnetic Generator MEG patented and under development by
Magnetic Energy Ltd of Huntsville, Alabama, via one of their leading
engineers comments below on how his explanation of MEG operation,
extracting energy as electricity from the quantum vacuum flux of
space itself, relates also to some of the fundamental principles of
Paramahamsa Tewari's Space Vortex Theory of matter-energy
and his proven Space Power Generator which was inspired by the
experiments of Bruce DePalma on rotational anomalies including
his n-Machine rotating magnetic system, an independent re-discovery
of Michael Faraday's 1931 discovery which he called the homopolar
or unipolar motor/generator effect of spinning a magnetize disc creating
an electric current flow from center to edge of the disc, DePalma and
Tewari showing this current to be an "overunity" amount greater than
"100% efficiency" (Coefficient of Production COP>1) due its rotation
in the space in which matter resides apparently "inducing" release of
electricity from this "energy field in space itself" which the earlier
years of DePalma-Delvers experiments ('71-78) proved existed and
qualified in such of their experiments as the spinning ball drop showing
a spinning ball bearing falls faster than a nonspinning ball bearing, the
force machine showing polarization of intertia and weight loss of a
rotating and precessing system, space drive and antigravity effects,
etc. as shown at

http://www.depalma.pair.com -- Bruce DePalma and Edward Delvers

http://www.tewari.org -- Paramahamsa Tewari SVT, Vedic Spirituality

http://www.cheniere.org -- Tom Bearden - Assn. Distinguished AmSci

http://www.newenergymovement.org -- Dr. Brian O'Leary PhD UCal

If the reader wishes to Subscribe for Updates and Involvement with
Implementation of AET Advanced Energy Technologies, send blank email to

Global-Powers-Consortium-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

and return the confirmation email for subscription. New Public archives list
for IMPLEMENTATION of AET -- Research Posted: New-Energy-Solutions list:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Global-Powers-Consortium

--Questions to: Global-Powers-Consortium-owner@yahoogroups.com

-----and now history records here start Global Powers Consortium list posts

-----Forwarded Message-----
From: Tom Bearden
Sent: Jul 18, 2005 9:23 AM
To: David Crockett Williams
Subject: RE: Global Powers Consortium

Dave,

Thanks immensely for your efforts and strong interest.

Incidentally, I'm always a little embarrassed by the phrase "Bearden's MEG".
The other four guys did almost all the hard work on it, and all the bench
work (I personally do not build anything!) and I was just the "advisor" etc.
Also, I'm just the one who writes about it, since the other fellows don't do
much writing. But it really was a team effort lasting more than eight years,
and exploring many avenues that did not work for one reason or another.

One thing we have done is get enough out there in writing so that the MEG is
not going to disappear, even if the five of us do as we get along there in
years. The technical operation of the unit is fully explained and in real
physics terms. The Aharonov-Bohm effect is for real and properly documented
in the physics literature in some 20,000 papers now. So there is some very
good physics involved, with a good experimental data base behind that
physics. The trick was to find a material that would accomplish the AB
effect without one having to pay for it being done. A simple toroid coil
will generate the effect, but one has to pay for the power to the coil to do
it, so that one already enforces Lorentz symmetry, defeating any COP>1.0
operation. That's why the AB effect was never thought of in terms of
overunity.

In the MEG, the special nanocrystalline material does it "for free", which
gives the broken symmetry required for a circuit or system to be permitted
to exhibit COP>1.0 operation. Otherwise, one would be back into Lorentz
symmetry, and that would guarantee COP < 1.0.

The two papers on my website that deal with errors in the standard CEM/EE
model are at these two links:

For a 30+ page paper that details the many serious falsities in the CEM/EE
model, please see

http://www.cheniere.org/techpapers/CEM%20Errors%20-%20final%20paper%20comple
te%20w%20longer%20abstract4.doc


For another paper that is directly related and covers some things in even
greater detail, see

http://www.cheniere.org/techpapers/why%20Van%20Flandern%20waterfall%20analog
y3.doc

Both papers are heavily referenced so that one can track the literature
against my thesis, to see if it is supported adequately.

Best wishes,
Tom

-----Original Message-----
From: David Crockett Williams
Sent: Monday, July 18, 2005 1:19 AM
To: Mark Ward
Cc: Ron Powers; Tom Bearden
Subject: Global Powers Consortium

Hi Mark,

Looks from this like we are "on the same page" now. I will breathe
easier after Ron reads the emails regarding Bearden's MEG and
sends me the same kind of thumbs up Teri has given here before
seeing details of the Global Powers Consortium suggestion as
including the new energy techs that so many are afraid of getting
involved with even if they believe they are real. If Ron's informed
response matches the tone of this one on that point, we should
get Bearden linked up easy as his situation right now may
be greatly aided by his work coming under GPC umbrella
as "just another advance energy tech" in the GPC hopper.

In such case, a next step is a meeting of the minds between
Schroeder and Bearden by each studying the other's technical
papers and offering their comments to the "Consortium Database".
Bearden is an engineer/inventor without the track record in industry
that Schroeder has, one which if Schroeder can grok Bearden's
physics corrections and agrees with his latest paper's logic, this
is big for Bearden as a point of "authentication" by someone
with Schroeder's track record in industry. Few people in such
position have seen or understand Bearden's science and if
Schroeder does, watch out and stand back, it's "we have ignition"
and soon, "we have liftoff" :-)

I have a hunch that Bearden's team connected with GPC
will exponentially accelerate both his and Schroeder's inventions
to market. Same next for Tewari in India as a "natural" in light
of advanced status of PDI connections and influence already
in India. His Space Vortex Theory behind his overunity Space
Power Generator version of DePalma's n-Machine will be a bit
harder to grok perhaps, but Bearden can help with that I think.
Tewari and Bearden are the "elders" as I see it in this hard
to label genre we have been variously calling "new energy,"
"space energy," "vacuum energy," "free energy" techs for
decades now without labeling success thus "hindering the grok."

That's why "advanced energy technologies" may suit us best
here since Schroeder's fits that label too and if he is as sharp
as he must be with his credentials, he also has his work cut
out for him to get his head around MEG and later SPG for
his interpretive analysis of the principles and technological
applications of same, but well worth it since our whole new
energy movement seems to be on hold waiting for a guy
like him with his track record to make adequate publicly
understandable explanations of them that investors need
from a guy with his experience and resume' in collaboration
with someone like Ron whose industrial design experience
and credentials make him perhaps second to none in public
interface of complex technological design ideas in language
CEO's and Wall Street types can understand and implement
in "appliances" designed around the core technologies so
the "sale" become the appliance and not the complexities
of the technologies.

Better for our overall mental and physical health on all this if
we just keep the view in mind that per Teri's response below,
it's a done deal. It is not only going to happen, but already has
happended at a future point in time.

Also and most important, don't be hard on yourself. You are
a uniquely qualified "people person" and are doing a most
important job here in wiring folks together in a good way with
your 20 years of applying your skills and intelligence empowered
by your work with Bruce DePalma who has greatly inspired us both.

Just to be clear, my clarification of intent comments below already
also apply to Bearden and Tewari. Everyone else in that arena is
off my radar for various reasons, although Trombly is still an
elusive blip raging behind a fog bank somewhere :-)

If I do get to see and speak with Stephen Seagal and Congressman
Dennis Kucinich on Thursday when the "Full Circle Walk to Trinity"
gets to Cesar Chavez headquarters over the mountain from here,
I will likely get a minute or so to explain some of this to them and
open those doors. If not, I already have their email attention now
anyway as a result of last few days work with the producer-director
of the movie they are making about this particular walk.
http://www.gndfund.org

Good work!

Gassho -- Palms together venerating the divine in everyone.

David


From: Ron Powers
To: David Crockett Williams
Cc: Ron Powers
Subject: Re: clarification on my intent
Date: Jul 17, 2005 8:38 PM

Hi David,

I am Teri, Ron's other half. He likes me so much because I can type at the
speed of light (compared to him!) I was just doing some work on the computer
while Ron is reading all your emails from last week. I printed this one off
and gave it to him. He is so pleased with your clarification of intent, he
agrees with the things you have written - and is honored to be working with
you at this level.

He also likes the idea of the Global Powers Consortium - you have understood
his thinking 100%.

Anyway - just to let you know - we are both back, hard at it, and he is
reading all your emails now. He had a great birthday by the way, thanks for
understanding - I think he needed to catch his breath.

I have not seen anyone else (besides Ron) with the enthusiasm, dedication,
and vision that you have shown in your emails. He is very excited about
where our futures will lead.

More later,

Ron and Teri


----- Original Message -----
From: David Crockett Williams
To: Ron Powers
Cc: Mark Ward
Sent: Sunday, July 17, 2005 8:03 PM
Subject: clarification on my intent


> Hi Ron,
>
> Mark and I had a good and long talk on the phone today
> and as a result I want to clarify an abbreviated remark
> in my recent email regarding the nature of my commitment
> and intent here with you.
>
> I have been waiting for a long time to work with you when
> the time is right, based on what I understood about your
> work and who you are from Mark and Dean House over
> many years.
>
> Now that we have started, basically in a nutshell, I am with
> you, and in this, "for the duration" come hell or high water for
> whatever I can do to help to see your talent and experience
> most beneficially used for the benefit of humanity.
>
> Same goes with Mark with whom I have been in collaboration
> on many matters for about 20 years, but sporadically and
> not so focused on producing specific results until now.
>
> My overtures to Oprah are just the beginning and on one
> hand a way to develop clear communications between us
> and on the other to enable me to practice innumerable
> 2000 character writeups to pitch your project to her while
> learning enough details myself so I can procede to next
> step of fundraising and execution of the projects you have
> sent me about, and more to come.
>
> In my view you will become a Bill Gates level influence
> on the world by pursuing the suggestion of the idea
> referenced in one email this week as a/the
> Global Powers Consortium, ie, we can rally and implement
> many new techs synergistically in this way.
>
> Let me know when you have had time to digest the
> last batch of emails and your feedback. I am standing
> by to move forward poste haste at every step, as soon I have
> sufficient reliable and authenticable information to do so.
>
> Oprah today and tomorrow the globe, kind of thing.
>
> Mark said you would even consider a site by the water,
> Lake Erie I think, in Cleveland if Kucinich can help, as well
> as Santa Barbara area as you described. Good, this gives
> me ability to play one against the other to see which group
> of folks will win the contract to site this Global Powers Consortium,
> and its PDI core and its initial major project of the Schroeder
> inventions. Can I add Bakersfield and its Kern River to the list?
> Our congressman is the head of the House Ways and Means
> Committee, Bill Thomas, and is about as influential as they
> come here in the land of CA aerospace hi tech and the Kern
> County Technology Transfer Group I have worked with in the
> past. It's kind of like Texas here, hot and lots of oil wells :-)
>
> Awaiting your feedback on my last week's emails to you.
>
> We are now laying the foundation for a lifelong relationship,
> so let us lay these first few bricks with great care and precision.
>
> Gassho -- Palms together venerating the divine in everyone,
>
> David
>
> General Agency Services
> David Crockett Williams - 661-867-2877
> Paradise Valley Movie Ranch
> 13554 Paradise Valley Road
> Twin Oaks, CA 93518
> http://www.angelfire.com/on/GEAR2000/paradise-valley.html
>
>
>
>


=============end first Bearden-Williams fwd
re Gloal Powers Consortium, of Jul 18 ==========


-----Forwarded Message-----
From: Tom Bearden
Sent: Aug 3, 2005 3:33 PM
To: David Crockett Williams
Cc: Dr. James Lee Kenny, Jim Hayes

Subject: RE: limitations of modern physics:
if one has to solve the mystery of the origin

P.S.

Extracting this from Tewari's very clear statement:

"...then the medium of three dimensional space(mass less), in dynamic
condition, becomes the primordial energy that constructs matter and moves
cosmic bodies. In other words, space is more fundamental than matter."

Tewari is absolutely correct and I agree with him completely. If one takes
the general relativity view, then the dynamics of the changes (curvature,
torsion) in spacetime become what energy fundamentally is. If one takes the
particle physics view, then that is precisely one may state that the
dynamics of changes in the virtual particle flux of vacuum is what "energy"
fundamentally is (or it may be so modeled, fundamentally).

Here let me diverge a moment: The fundamental units one uses in one's
physics model are totally arbitrary. One can (and they have) built proper
physics models using only a single fundamental unit. Suppose we use the unit
"joule" as our only fundamental unit, and build our model accordingly. Then
everything becomes a function of energy -- and so spacetime (defined as
energy) becomes "the fundamental thing in the universe". Jackson discusses
this a bit in his Classical Electrodynamics, second and third editions. He
also caught a lot of flack on it, apparently, by those who simply cannot
believe that "fundamental" units are actually arbitrary.

As pointed out by Wheeler's neat statement, mass-energy acts on spacetime to
tell it how to curve, and curved spacetime acts back on mass to tell it how
to move. That is, mass and spacetime energetically interact with each other,
which of course is totally missing in the CEM/EE model which erroneously
assumes a flat spacetime and thus an "inert" space that is energy-free.

To correct the rather sorry CEM/EE model problem (horribly obsolete with a
dozen or more major falsities assumed in it), one must use a "supersystem"
concept of the system and its spacetime, each acting on the other. Failure
to do that is really why there has been such difficulty in obtaining a
proper unified field theory.

I like to pose all that as the source charge problem, long known and
unsolved though pushed out of all the texts because it is so vexing. Simply
put, any static charge continuously pours out real observable photons (real
EM energy, observable and usable) in all directions, yet it receives no
OBSERVABLE energy input to do so. Easily shown experimentally, and has been
shown long ago. As Sen puts it,

"The connection between the field and its source has always been and still
is the most difficult problem in classical and quantum electrodynamics." [D.
K. Sen, Fields and/or Particles, Academic Press, London and New York, 1968,
p. viii].

Kosyakov states it bluntly as follows:

"The recurring question has been: Why is it that an electric charge radiates
but does not absorb light waves despite the fact that the Maxwell equations
are invariant under time reversal?" [B. P. Kosyakov, Radiation in
electrodynamics and in Yang-Mills theory," Soviet Phys. Usp., 35(2), Feb.
1992, p. 141].

Note that Kosyakov was also pointing out the discrepancy of the notion of
all-symmetrical Maxwellian systems with the actual behavior of all charges,
which are happy to be ASYMMETRICAL systems.


But the observation that every charge gushes forth real observable energy
output, without any observable energy output, means that every charge in the
universe either (1) destroys the conservation of energy law by continually
creating all that gushing free EM energy from nothing at all, or (2) it has
to receive the necessary energy input in the form of virtual state EM energy
from the disordered subquantal oscillations of the vacuum. That is,
reinterpreting that latter part in general relativity terms, it has to be
acted upon by a curved spacetime.

The alternative (2) is precisely what the source charge does, and that is
precisely what produces all observable and usable EM energy in the universe,
all EM fields, and all EM potentials. They are all freely produced by the
source charge's interaction with its supersystem active vacuum (active
spacetime).

However, that action by the source charge also destroys the present
inadequate statement of the second law of thermodynamics, because to
coherently integrate successive virtual state energy inputs into observable
size (the next quantum excitation level), the charge must somehow reorder
the disordered virtual energy. And that of course is a negative entropy
operation. Fortunately in 1999 (published in 2000, 2002, and subsequently)
we found the reordering mechanism used by the charge, which mechanism turned
out to be very simple indeed. Each virtual photon absorbed by the charge's
mass results in that virtual energy being converted into a differential of
change of the mass of the charged particle. Since mass of a particle is
unitary, successive virtual mass increases just coherently add as increasing
virtual state mass-energy, until sufficient additional mass energy has been
integrated to reach the next quantum excitation level. At that point, the
incessant zitterbewegung (shaking) of the charged particle's mass by the
active vacuum just "shakes out" a real, observable photon, so that the
mass-energy's excitation abruptly decays back to the former quantum level by
emission of a real quantum of EM energy.

Therefore the charge is actually a Feynman ratchet, continually performing
this reordering of the absorbed disordered virtual energy of the vacuum. It
"ratchets up" the now-reordered mass-energy coherently to the next quantum
excitation level, spits out a photon in an abrupt decay back to the start,
then iterates the process repeatedly.

Every charge in the universe freely and continually does this, since its
appearance.

In this way, the long-vexing source charge problem is solved, but we have
destroyed the present hoary old second law of thermodynamics because every
charge is a physical system thermodynamically, and it continually consumes
positive entropy of the virtual state and produces negative entropy of the
observable state.

Fortunately, thermodynamicists D. Evans and Rondoni have theoretically
proven that the present thermodynamic theory does permit real systems that
generate continuous negative entropy. Startled by their own results, they
felt that probably no real system could do it -- but the source charge (and
every dipole) does it. So I nominated the charge and the dipole as being the
first known and ubiquitous examples of such negative entropy systems. Every
charge and dipole in the original matter in the universe has thus been
freely pouring out real observable usable EM energy in all directions,
thereby establishing and continually replenishing its associated EM fields
and potentials spreading at light speed. The original charges and dipoles
have been doing that for some 13 billion years, and have not even diminished
their free flow of real EM energy.

Thus all EM energy (and all fields and potentials) already are free flows of
EM energy, for that is the form in which EM energy really occurs! We pay
nothing at all for the free flows of EM energy, easily established for
peanuts and as strongly as we wish, anywhere in the universe.

Whittaker also showed in 1903 and 1904 that all EM fields and potentials are
also ongoing sets of freely flowing EM energy. There is no such thing as a
"static" EM field in nature; the "static" field is -- to use Van Flandern's
analogy -- like an unfrozen waterfall, with internal parts continually in
flowing motion. It is not like a FROZEN waterfall, with no such moving
internal parts.

And yes, in his fundamental understanding Tewari is right in there.

This all means that, because of fundamental errors in our CEM/EE model
taught in all electrical power engineering, there are errors which result in
us being unable to build asymmetrical systems that freely collect the free
flowing EM energy than nature gives us from every charge and dipole, and
then dissipate the collected potential energy in the loads to power the
loads freely.

And so there are those errors present in the model. A big one occurred in
1892 when Lorentz arbitrarily symmetrized the already reduced
Maxwell-Heaviside equations, thereby arbitrarily discarding all such
asymmetrical Maxwellian systems! And our standard circuit practice of
leaving the "external" source of potential energy flow connected to its own
external circuit while current is flowing (i.e., while the collected
potential energy in the external circuit is being dissipated), is what uses
half the freely collected energy to destroy the "external" source of
potential, while the other half is dissipated in the losses and loads of the
external circuit.

To keep the energy from the vacuum freely flowing, we then have to
continually crank the shaft of the generator to get some rotating magnetic
field energy inside the generator that is dissipated on the internal charges
to force opposite charges in opposite directions, thereby restoring the
source dipolarity. Obviously we have to input at least as much energy to
restore the dipolarity of the internal charges as was used to scatter them
and destroy their dipolarity.

So we always have to input more energy to crank the shaft of the generator
than we get out in the distant loads. Helluva poor way to run a railroad!

The answer is to restore the asymmetrical Maxwellian systems arbitrarily
discarded by Lorentz. That can be done by refusing to SYMMETRICALLY regauge
the equations. When symmetrical regauging is used, no net translation force
vector field results, even though two new and free vector fields result that
are deliberately made equal and opposite. All the excess free field
(translation) energy is locked up as stress energy and stress in the system.
Instead, one's system must be such that it is only described by
ASYMMETRICALLY regauged equations, so that a net free EM force field does
result, and can therefore dissipate the excess potential energy by forcing
electrons (current) through the loads in the external circuit. While that is
ongoing, there must not be any use of that dissipation of energy back in the
external source of potential.

But the electrical power engineers, to insure that the highly undesirable
"Lorentz SYMMETRY condition" is indeed physically enforced, use the common
practice of leaving the external source connected to the external circuit
while current is flowing in that external circuit. And that physically
self-enforces Lorentz symmetry IN THE PERFORMANCE OF THAT EXTERNAL CIRCUIT.
It makes the forward emf equal and opposite in direction to the "back emf".
So half the emf destroys the dipolarity of the external source, while the
other half of the emf powers the loads and losses in the external circuit.

We pay our power engineers and the power company to deliberately engage in a
giant wrestling match inside their generators and always deliberately lose!
There is no law of physics, thermodynamics, or nature that requires that.
There is simply an arbitrary practice initiated by Lorentz to get simpler
equations easier to algebraically solve. And a blind adherence to that dogma
for more than a century, by our entire scientific community, all electrical
engineering departments and professors, and all our texts in classical
electrodynamics.

To borrow a phrase from Nikola Tesla, it is one of the most inexplicable
aberrations of the scientific mind ever recorded in history.

For a rigorous theoretical proof that violating the Lorentz condition does
indeed lead to extraction of EM energy from the vacuum, see M. W. Evans et
al., "Classical Electrodynamics without the Lorentz Condition: Extracting
Energy from the Vacuum," Physica Scripta, Vol. 61, 513-517, 2000. There it
is shown "loud and clear" in a leading physics journal, using a higher group
symmetry electrodynamics -- i.e., O(3) electrodynamics -- thereby extending
the earlier work of Lehnert and of Lehnert and Roy.

Best wishes,

Tom


[responding to:]
-----Original Message-----
From: David Crockett Williams
Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2005 4:20 PM
To: Thomas Bearden - Association of Distinguished American Scientists
Cc: Dr. James Lee Kenny
Subject: limitations of modern physics:
if one has to solve the mystery of the origin

Hi Tom,

As you can see by the posts I have been copying you this
has been a busy time for my in my save the world hobby
activities, but here Tewari comments in this thread on what
seems a key point in his theory and I wonder if you can address
it and his comments in light of your understandings per previous
posts relating to MEG "theory" or understanding per how you
have determined the theoretical physics people have overlooked
the right pieces of the puzzle to put together to explain MEG effects.

Does it seem Tewari has a whole different puzzle he has put
together behind his view of theoretical physics, also coming
from the background of electrical engineering, or do you think
his view eg below is a piece of "a bigger puzzle" looking for
how to fit it with other clearly cut pieces?

After Aug.9 unless I hear different from you I will phone over to
Clipper Windpower and start followup towards Jim Dehlsen
on the deal I sent him regarding your MEG proposal. When
he is up to speed and you all have hashed out the details of
an arrangement, then I have another suggestion for potential
larger firm/network for partnership evaluation since Dehlsen's
situation from his website looks like he seeks funding for his
projects on a case by case basis from sources whose investment
parameters fit the wind energy stuff but not necessarily the pre-
production budget you folks need now of $1M. Do you think
with the right situation that a larger amount would get MEG
into manufacturing mode sooner, ie, how soon possible with
how much needed in what steps when if all goes well?

This flareup about Brian portends big things coming soon
in India for this new energy tech genre. Can you imagine,
Tewari all along could have full support of the India government
but he is "shy" of asking since those in charge are older than
him and he is embarassed that he held senior positions to
them before in their respective works for the government?
Talk about a culture shock, that point really zaps me. Looks
like it will be O'Leary who is our liaison to President Abdul
Kalaam since my other contact with relationship in this realm
doesn't apparently trust my judgement or honesty level in this
advanced energy tech overture to India.

David


From: David Crockett Williams
To: Joe Moreno - webmaster http://www.saisathyasai.com
Subject: From: P Tewari - Re: Clarifications about O'Leary -
- another victim of "extrapolations of Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle".
Date: Tuesday, August 02, 2005 8:55 PM

From: P Tewari
To: David Crockett Williams
Cc: Toby Grotz - webmaster http://www.tewari.org, Dr. Brian O'Leary
Subject: Re: Clarifications about O'Leary -- another victim of
"extrapolations of Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle".
Date: Aug 2, 2005 12:09 AM

Dear David,

Sorry , I took some time to go through your message due to some urgent
personal work.

Brian O'Leary did plan to come over to my place to see my experimental set
up and thereafter we were to go to Baba. But, unfortunately, he got really
sick and neither could travel to my place nor could go to Puttaparthy.
Because of long distance of drive from my place to Shivanand ashram and then
to Puttaparthy, added with my own ill health and limited time of Brian, I
missed meeting Brian and also missed Baba's darshan at Puttaparthy.

On meeting dignitaries in India for funds to develop my researches, I have
always felt shy of asking from those who in govrnment service have been just
a couple of years older than me, and I have held positions in my own
profession sufficiently senior. My latest conclusion on commercial viability
of over unity generator is that within less than five years reaction less
generators will be available.

Critics of Baba can go through my book "Spiritual Foundation", Editor , Toby
Grotz, available at http://www.tewari.org/. But let me add some comments on
limitations of modern physics: if one has to solve the mystery of the origin
of mass and charge property of elctron and origin of fields, then the medium
of three dimensional space(mass less), in dynamic condition, becomes the
primordial energy that constructs matter and moves cosmic bodies. In other
words, space is more fundamental than matter. Can modern physics ever accept
this finding? Further, universal consciousness is the static state of
Aakaash (mass less space)---Chidaakaash of the Vedas. Individual
consciousness of living beings is derived from the universal consciousness.
Without understanding these subtler principles, critics make abusive
comments on the Incarnation of this age--Shri Sathya Sai Baba.

best wishes,

paramahamsa

===end 2nd compilation Bearden-Williams fwd post Aug 3, 2005 3:33 PM

-----Forwarded Message-----
From: Tom Bearden
Sent: Aug 3, 2005 3:55 PM
To: David Crockett Williams
Cc: Dr. James Lee Kenny, Jim Hayes
Subject: RE: his comments in light of your understandings

David,

Please see the second reply where I addressed that question in some detail.
Tewari is right on.

All one needs add to my second reply is two things:

(1) Violation of the old second law of thermodynamics is no big thing;
several areas and things already are well-known to allow such violation. See
Dilip Kondepudi and Ilya Prigogine, Modern Thermodynamics: From Heat Engines
to Dissipative Structures, Wiley, New York, 1998, reprinted with corrections
1999. Areas known to violate thermodynamics are given on p. 459; one is
sharp strong gradients. Maxwell himself points out the ease with which the
Second Law is violated, when he stated:

"The truth of the second law is . a statistical, not a mathematical, truth,
for it depends on the fact that the bodies we deal with consist of millions
of molecules. Hence the second law of thermodynamics is continually being
violated, and that to a considerable extent, in any sufficiently small group
of molecules belonging to a real body." (J.C. Maxwell, "Tait's
Thermodynamics II," Nature 17, 278-280 (7 February 1878)).

Indeed, we have proposed a potential solution to the dark energy and dark
mass problems in astrophysics, based on exactly what happens to the vacuum
in such a strong gradient process, and a colleague has it working in actual
circuits (we filed a provisional patent application). So the nature of dark
energy and dark matter can be explored on the bench, once the
astrophysicists understand exactly what dark matter (Dirac sea holes and
hole currents, NOT positrons!) and dark energy (the negative energy EM
fields from such dark matter) are and how they can be evoked and examined in
real circuits on the bench.

(2) One really should stress asking the fundamental electrical power system
questions, when one is re-examining electrical engineering and the CEM/EE
model. Such typical questions are:

Why and how do the present electrical power systems prohibit COP>1.0? What
is the source charge problem and why does it destroy much of physics unless
a solution is found and advanced? What exactly (and when and by who) was the
severe curtailment of Maxwellian quaternion electrodynamics? What are still
the dozen or so major falsities contained in the standard CEM/EE model, and
why do not our scientific leaders have that terribly flawed century-old
model corrected and updated? What is the CEM/EE symmetrization problem
introduced by Lorentz and still ongoing so that all asymmetric Maxwellian
systems taking energy from the vacuum have been and are arbitrarily omitted?
What is the difference between asymmetric regauging and symmetrical
regauging of the Maxwell-Heaviside-Lorentz equations? What are the new
implications that asymmetrical regauging produces? What is the technical
difference between an asymmetrical Maxwellian system (discarded by Lorentz)
and a symmetrical Maxwellian system? What does cranking the shaft of a
generator actually and specifically do in a circuit? Exactly where does the
specific EM field energy and potential energy utilized in a circuit come
from? How does it arise in the circuit? Why are we taught to always leave
the source of free Poynting energy flow connected to its own external
circuit when that circuit is dissipating its freely collected potential
energy, so that half of that energy will be used only to destroy the source
of free EM energy flow itself? How is a field or potential already a set of
free energy flows from the vacuum, via the associated source charges? What
are the areas already recognized and accepted by nonequilibrium
thermodynamicists as violating the second law of thermodynamics, etc.? How
does one use one or more of those areas in a working circuit, so that the
circuit permissibly violates the old second law of thermodynamics? What
does the old second law actually erroneously assume anyway, and how must it
be changed and updated? Why are we not already using negative entropy
circuits, when thermodynamicists have theoretically proven (and the source
charge experimentally demonstrates) that negative entropy processes and
systems are possible? What does one have to do to actually produce negative
entropy in a circuit? (Hint! One simple way is just increase the voltage
while the current remains zero, then remove the source of potential before
the circuit is recompleted and the current allowed to flow. That does no
work at all, but freely increases the potential energy of the external
circuit and lowers its entropy - and hence is a negative entropy operation
though very simple.)

Two papers dealing with many of these questions can be downloaded from these
links:

A 30+ page paper that details the many serious falsities in the CEM/EE model
is at

http://www.cheniere.org/techpapers/CEM%20Errors%20-%20final%20paper%20comple
te%20w%20longer%20abstract4.doc .

References that give rigorous theoretical
proof that Lorentz symmetrical regauging arbitrarily eliminates all those
asymmetric Maxwellian systems that can and will produce energy from the
vacuum are cited in the footnotes for the abstract page. The necessary
corrections to the second law of thermodynamics are also given.

For another paper that is directly related and covers some things in
somewhat greater detail, see

http://www.cheniere.org/techpapers/why%20Van%20Flandern%20waterfall%20analog
y3.doc .

Best wishes,

Tom

[responding to:]
-----Original Message-----
From: David Crockett Williams
Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2005 4:55 PM
To: Tom Bearden
Cc: Dr. James Lee Kenny - CEO Magnetic Energy Ltd
Subject: his comments in light of your understandings

Yes, I understand that. I should have made two different
emails and will assume Dr. Kenny can address his pertinent
parts of my previous post, but I had thought you the one who
might best address the initial point, ie,

Tewari comments on what
seems a key point in his theory and I wonder if you can address
it and his comments in light of your understandings per previous
posts relating to MEG "theory" or understanding per how you
have determined the theoretical physics people have overlooked
the right pieces of the puzzle to put together to explain MEG effects.

Does it seem Tewari has a whole different puzzle he has put
together behind his view of theoretical physics, also coming
from the background of electrical engineering, or do you think
his view eg below is a piece of "a bigger puzzle" looking for
how to fit it with other clearly cut pieces?

A "routine" question relating to your quantum vacuum vocabulary?

"some comments on limitations of modern physics: if one has to
solve the mystery of the origin of mass and charge property of
electron and origin of fields, then the medium of three dimensional
space(mass less), in dynamic condition, becomes the primordial
energy that constructs matter and moves cosmic bodies. In other
words, space is more fundamental than matter. Can modern
physics ever accept this finding?"

A "physics of consciousness" question?

"Further, universal consciousness is the static state of
Aakaash (mass less space)---Chidaakaash of the Vedas. Individual
consciousness of living beings is derived from the universal consciousness."

General Agency Services
David Crockett Williams - 661-867-2877
gear2000@...
Paradise Valley Movie Ranch
13554 Paradise Valley Road
Twin Oaks, CA 93518
http://www.angelfire.com/on/GEAR2000/paradise-valley.html



From: Tom Bearden
To: David Crockett Williams
Cc: Lee Kenny
Subject: RE: limitations of modern physics: if one has to solve the
mystery of the origin
Date: Aug 3, 2005 2:30 PM
David,

All matters concerning business arrangements with the MEG etc. come under
Dr. Kenny. He's the CEO of the little company, Magnetic Energy Ltd., to
which the MEG rights are assigned, and he is the one to make arrangements
with.

Best wishes,

Tom


--------end fwd posts, compilation posted at/as
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Global-Powers-Consortium/message/1

Global-Powers-Consortium-owner@yahoogroups.com
David Crockett Williams, Jr. (III) dob 5-17-45 24Aug05 4:40pmPDT
General Agency Services -- Phone 661-867-2877
Twin Oaks Camp David California
Global Emergency Alert Response 2000
http://www.angelfire.com/on/GEAR2000

list moderator for many yahoogroups also including

Science and Technology in Society and Public Policy Group
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dcwilliams

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/New-Energy-Solutions

and re various projects to offer solutions such as above, ie

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/World-Peace-Walk

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Steps-for-Peace

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Jerusalem-Peace-Walk