Date: Saturday, October 12, 2002 1:21 PM

The CEO of the California Power Authority responded definitively in exactly
20 hours to my overly agressive general information release of Thursday,
below, with his urging for submission of overunity power technologies to
California Energy Commission for screening.

Thomas Bearden reponds in support of Governor Davis' difficult position on
this matter, and his reasoning regarding current status and difficulties of
overunity power tech development.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Freeman, Dave"
To: "'David Crockett Williams'" <gear2000@...>
Sent: Friday, October 11, 2002 11:02 AM
Subject: RE: why Gov. Davis for 14months ignoring overunity power technology
solution to energy crisis and war over oil?

Mr. Williams,

As Ms. Berta suggested to you when you phoned the other day, the agency that
screens new inventions is the California Energy Commission. We are united
in suggesting thay you contact them and submit your work to them. That is
our definitive answer!


From: "Tom Bearden"
To: "David Crockett Williams" ; "Dr. Fred B. Wood Sr."; "Dean House"; "Gary
Vesperman"; "Hal Fox - editor Journal of New Energy"; "Dr. Eugene Mallove
editor Infinite Energy Magazine"; "Mark Comings"
Cc: "Carol Rosin"; "Fred J. Wood"; "David B. Hamilton" [US Dept. Energy]
Subject: RE: response from David Freeman, CA "Energy Czar" CEO California
Power Authority
Date: Friday, October 11, 2002 9:09 PM

David,

Governor Davis has a big problem that one must sympathize with and
understand! The "overunity energy community" is largely in the condition of
having mostly only successful small experimental buildups, not robust and
proven systems ready for production and full-bore on line power utility
operation. It's an area where additional research and development --- and
funding for that --- are very much still required for a substantial period,
at least for the developments I personally know anything about.

If you can find an exception to that, and it's a proven exception, not just
a "statement", e.g., then of course the situation changes. But in Governor
Davis's responsible position, he cannot make a decision for something still
unproven, not yet even developed to the production-ready state, and that has
not been demonstrated in multiple environments and conditions already
powering things like homes and larger loads, and that has not been certified
and approved by the regulatory agencies. That would be like saying he ought
to just use hot fusion, even though it isn't really developed yet. And hot
fusion gets billions for research, while COP>1.0 system research gets zilch.

I sincerely recommend you reassess any plans to try to "fry" the governor
because he doesn't jump for unproven technologies still in the embryonic
stage and not meeting the legally required standards. In his position, he
really can't afford to do that. If he did, he would be irresponsible and
would almost certainly initiate a greater disaster energy-wise than
California suffered last year already.

The real problem is not with the Governor! It's with the U.S. scientific
community, which still erroneously equates COP>1.0 with perpetual motion
purporting to have EFFICIENCY greater than 100% (and therefore implying
machines that CREATE extra energy from nothing). Every charge in the
universe already demonstrates COP = infinity (as does a windmill or a solar
cell, or a waterwheel, e.g.), but that certainly is not an EFFICIENCY
greater than 100% since the charge freely receives all the energy directly
from the seething vacuum (Wu et al., broken symmetry of opposite charges,
1957, Nobel Prize to Lee and Yang the same year). For COP>1.0 systems, all
the energy output is in fact input to the system; it's just that for COP>1.0
the environment freely inputs some of the energy so that the operator does
not have to input all of it. So the operator permissibly inputs less than
the system outputs --- the excess being freely input from the environment.
For COP = infinity, the operator inputs nothing at all, and the environment
puts all the energy into the system.

The standard electrical engineering community and classical electrodynamics
still use an archaic model, however, The old model dates from 1867 with
curtailments in the 1880s and 1890s, and assumes that the source charge
(every charge in the universe) freely creates energy out of nothing,
pouring it out at light speed in all directions and establishing its
associated fields and potentials (and their energy) expanding across the
universe at light speed. In other words, their model does assume
continuous, steadily increasing giant negentropy of the source charge, but
it also assumes that all that energy is just freely CREATED by the charge
and not input to it by anything.

So the greatest perpetual motion advocates in human history are ---
unwittingly --- our own electrical professors, power system engineers, and
power system scientists! They already assume every charge to be a perpetual
motion machine of the very worst kind, creating energy from nothing,
continuously and steadily. Then the more dogmatic of these fellows have the
gall to call legitimate COP>1.0 EM researchers "perpetual motion nuts". No
legitimate overunity researcher ever claims the creation of energy, or a
system efficiency higher than 100%. He just claims that the active
environment inputs the energy or some of it, so that the operator doesn't
have to input all of it.

The U.S. scientific community still insists on an electrical power system EM
model that is archaic, does not include the vacuum's proven energetic
interaction with the EM system or a broken symmetry in that energetic
exchange, still uses symmetrically regauged equations (which regauging
discards EM systems far from equilibrium with their external environment,
the active vacuum), and still considers the second law of thermodynamics
inviolable. The second law most certainly is not inviolable; in fact it is
an oxymoron, implicitly assuming that some negentropy has first already
occurred, to generate the order that is then subsequently disordered. So
the second law --- as presently stated --- implicitly assumes its own
contradiction having first occurred, so it is an oxymoron. It's also under
heavy fire now by some very substantial scientists anyway.

The pollution of the planet and the energy crisis also are partially the
fault of the environmental community, which has largely turned to the
conventional scientific community for energy advice --- the same community
responsible for the problem in the first place --- without examining the
assumptions the conventional community uses in its models. It needs to seek
advice from some of the maverick or fore-front scientists who have already
pointed out the extreme shortcomings of the classical EM model, particularly
as used in electrical power engineering.

What is needed is research funding in this embryonic COP>1.0 area, in a
reasonable fashion. We need to stop saying that, hey, we can just easily
have a simple little old system from Radio Shack parts, and anyone can whip
it together. If it were that simple, those hundreds and thousands of sharp
young graduate students and post docs would have done it 50 years ago. They
didn't and they haven't, so obviously it is not that simple at all.

There is not now an accepted legitimate theory of COP>1.0 EM systems
(including my own, which is not accepted, at least not yet, although
certainly my own personal opinion is that it is legitimate and based on
proven physics), with lots of experimental confirmation of the fundamental
precepts etc. That needs doing and doing well, based on solid physics
outside classical EM theory. For COP>1.0 systems, standard electrical
engineering is also totally inadequate. A higher group symmetry
electrodynamics is required in order to even show the COP>1.0 aspects or to
understand and model how the energy is taken from the vacuum and converted
into real, observable EM energy (per Wu's experimental results in 1957 and
the Nobel Prize awarded to Lee and Yang). A major effort in producing such a
legitimate COP>1.0 theoretical model for EM systems should be substantially
funded, and that is one effort that the activist community is strongly urged
to take action on with respect to the leaders of the scientific community
who control the funding --- such as the National Academy of Sciences and the
National Science Foundation -- and of course the DoE.

The phenomenology of a COP>1.0 system is not just the standard EE
phenomenology, but it is much more complicated. It can and does involve
negative energy as well as positive energy. An electrical power system far
from equilibrium with the vacuum is technically in an excited state, and all
excited states have concomitant decay mechanisms. The decay mechanism for
most COP>1.0 EM systems is particularly insidious, being a negative energy
mechanism. So to have a stable COP>1.0 system, one is faced with the
necessity of producing what is known in extended thermodynamics as a
STABILIZED far from equilibrium state. When that is achieved, the COP>1.0
system will then be stable, will not decay back to COP<1.0, and can operate
and do the job reliably. Now just try to find that problem discussed in the
literature, except for the thermodynamics work which decidedly is not
pointed at COP>1.0 systems.

Close-looping such a stable disequilibrium system for self-powering
operation can then be done, but it is not a trivial task. Instead, it is
quite a difficult task indeed!. I discuss that at some length in my book,
Energy from the Vacuum: Concepts and Principles, available from my website
www.cheniere.org. We also give two methods for solving the close-looping,
self-powering problem. And we give the nature and main characteristics of
the negative energy problem as well, and how to handle it.

Now just try finding any scientific data or discussion on a stabilized
COP>1.0 EM system, or close-looping it for self-powering! There is nothing
in the textbooks about it, or in the standard scientific literature either.

Funding for that type of intensive theoretical and experimental work needs
to be forthcoming, or it will remain in the doldrums where it has long been.

Extended thermodynamics has some clues, for it already knows and clearly
recognizes areas where present thermodynamics fails. One of these areas is
in sharp gradients, e.g. -- which gets one into processes like Shoulders'
clusters made by discharge processes (where like charges attract and
cluster) and the very nice work of the Correas. However, the extended
thermodynamics fellows are attempting to deal with the area in irreversible
fashion, which means total application of the second law. When the second
law is violated, it is because one is using reversible interactions --- now
clearly proven experimentally (which means no amount of theory can refute
it) by Denis Evans et al. at up to the micron (colloidal) level and for two
seconds (and occasionally even a little longer). The second law has long
been recognized not to apply to a charge, an atom, a molecule, or a small
number of them. Now it is proven to frequently not apply to much larger
phenomena (much greater numbers of charges etc.) and for much longer periods
of time. We believe the new work by Evans et al., published in July in
Phys. Rev. Lett., fully justifies our previous assumption of "time reversal
zones" occurring in successful cold fusion experiments, so that for a short
time and for some collections of particles the reactions can and do run
backwards. This means that like charges can temporarily attract, totally
eliminating the Coulomb barrier and converting it to the Coulomb attractor.
We point out that the Coulomb barrier is really the only thing that prevents
transmutation nuclear reactions from occurring in electrolyte experiments
anyway. Now the violation of that Coulomb barrier is clearly permissible,
by the experiments of Evans et al. Hence it may just be that we deciphered
the major ingredient in the cold fusion successes (now in more than 600
successful experiments). That assumption and the resulting nuclear
reactions I showed as typical of a vast new type, now should be intensively
funded and followed up. The effort should include both theoretical and
experimental work and funding, by some of the best available researchers and
theoreticians.

As you can see, there is very rich and fruitful grounds here for strong,
well-funded research, both theoretical and experimental. Like any other
research area! What we do not need are "million dollar prizes" or "one-watt
challenges" and such conundrums, but legitimate research funding made
available for legitimate research efforts. Since intellectual property
rights of some inventors are also involved, then the projects should
recognize those rights via noncircumvention agreements, rather than the
"squirrely" contracts usually proffered for small funds, just to get all the
inventor's information. The DoE, e.g., should have a viable and very
strong, ongoing, well-funded program in COP>1.0 energy research, but one
that recognizes the noncircumvention rights of appropriate inventors.
However, to deal with independent inventors, the government agencies must
change their very tactics they now uses. The national laboratories under
them are very patent-hungry and file patents themselves. The independent
inventor can hardly work with them under any kind of program, unless he
wishes to risk losing all or most of his intellectual property rights.
DARPA, e.g., uses an infamous "march-in rights" clause that means that a
single bureaucrat can prepare a memo stating that you are not getting your
invention to market fast enough for the Government's needs. Whereupon the
"Government" seizes the patent rights, assigns the project to a favored
contractor, who then "pursues it with the vigor the government needs".
Similar fiascos are usually true for trying to work with many universities;
the administrations are usually greedy for patents, and usually will not
sign a noncircumvention clause at all. They also pressure their professors
and researchers to produce those patents!

In this type of "no funding or highly restricted funding" environment, it is
little wonder that real funding for independent researchers and research
groups --- and for inventors --- is very, very short, particularly if one
does not wish to "sell stock" etc. or engage in possible new "dot.com" type
affairs.

Anyway, hopefully that shows a little bit of what the Governor of California
is up against if he tries to prematurely "go with" COP>1.0 EM energy
systems. Sadly, the "overunity community" work --- including our own --- is
just not yet sufficiently mature to be able to place reliable, proven,
tested power systems into production. Note also that such power systems
have to have lots of safety and health standards testing and certifications
set by regulatory agencies, not by the Governor. No one in the COP>1.0
community presently has such systems ready, at least to my knowledge. So in
my opinion it is totally unfair to try to pressure the Governor to "opt for
unproven, non-developed, immature laboratory buildups", unless you can find
a candidate system that is already well tested and proven, certified for the
health requirements and regulatory requirements, reliable, safe, etc.

So this is a plea for the activist community to zero in on the real targets
blocking overunity power system research and development, rather than
unjustifiably harassing the poor Governor. He is in the position of having
to choose something already tested, proven, reliable, well-funded, in
production, and health-certified --- which means the standard stuff is all
he can turn to, because we simply do not yet have the overunity devices to
that state.

Best wishes,
Tom Bearden

-----Original Message-----
From: David Crockett Williams [mailto:gear2000@...]
Sent: Friday, October 11, 2002 7:19 PM
To: Dr. Fred B. Wood Sr.; Thomas Bearden; Dean House; Evan Soule' - Joseph
Newman Power Co.; Gary Vesperman; Hal Fox - editor Journal of New Energy;
Dr. Eugene Mallove editor Infinite Energy Magazine; Mark Comings
Cc: Carol Rosin
Subject: response from David Freeman, CA "Energy Czar" CEO California Power
Authority

Would welcome your advice on how to make the most of this opening in coming
weeks of election campaign while Gov. Davis is most sensitive to criticism
about igoring such important information, especially in news stories.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Freeman, Dave"
To: "'David Crockett Williams'" <gear2000@...>
Sent: Friday, October 11, 2002 11:02 AM
Subject: RE: why Gov. Davis for 14months ignoring overunity power technology
solution to energy crisis and war over oil?

Mr. Williams,

As Ms. Berta suggested to you when you phoned the other day, the agency that
screens new inventions is the California Energy Commission. We are united
in suggesting thay you contact them and submit your work to them. That is
our definitive answer!




-----Original Message-----
From: David Crockett Williams
Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 3:02 PM
To: California Governor Gray Davis; CA Power Authority CEO David Freeman
attn Elizabeth Berta; Dr. Terry Surles - CA Energy Comm. new energy tech
dept; CPUC Public Advisor's Office; CPUC Press Office; David Freeman;
USDoE David B. Hamilton; Dean House; CIA dir.sci/tech Ron Pandolfi;
President George W. Bush; Dr. Fred B. Wood Sr.; Thomas Bearden; Dr.
Brian O'Leary; Mark Comings; Evan Soule' - Joseph Newman Power Co.; Adam
Trombly; Dr. Harold Puthoff; Dr. Eugene Mallove editor Infinite Energy
Magazine; Hal Fox - editor Journal of New Energy
Cc: Guardian -The (UK); Grist Magazine; Grassroots News Network;
Grassroots News; Governing Magazine (US); Global Circle Webmaster;
Geraldo Rivera; Gary Webb; Frontline; Friends-foxnews; Fresno
Bee -The (CA); FreeSpeech.org Editor; FoxNewswatch; FoxNewsViewers;
FoxNews Speakout; FoxNews Hume; Fox News Channel; Fox News;
FNS-foxnews; Fleecing of America; Examiner-The (Ireland);
Environmental News Service; Environmental Media Services; Edmonton Sun
(Canada); Editor of Fortune Magazine; Editor of Daily Cal; Economist
-The (UK); Drudge Report; Dominion -The (New Zealand); Denver Post (CO);
Dallas Morning News (TX); Daily Times - Farmington; Daily Herald (IL);
Daily Cal - Features Editor; Colmes@...; CNN Reply; CNN People
Count; CNN Feedback; CNBC Rivera; CNBC Info; Cincinnati Post (OH);
Christian Science Monitor; Chicago Tribune (IL); CBS-News; CBS_News;
Capital Press; Businessweek; BrotherJohn Gazette; Boston Globe Newstips;
Boston Globe (MA); Boris Johnson - editor Spectator magazine; Bob Banner
(Hopedance); Belfast Telegraph (UK); BC Vic Pollard; BBC TV Points of
View; BBC Online; Barry Heifner - Daily Times; Baltimore Sun (MD);
BakersfieldCalifornian Local Editor; Bakersfield Californian Opinion
Editor; Australian -The (Australia); Austin Chronicle (TX); Associated
Press; Art Bell; Arizona Republic; Arizona Daily Star (AZ); ARIANNA
ONLINE; American News Service; All Things Considered; Albuquerque
Tribune (NM); Albuquerque Journal; Age -The (Australia); ABC News
Webmaster; ABC Audience Relations; 60 Minutes CBS; 20/20 News; Houston
Chronicle (TX); Howard Altman; Independent -The (UK); Indigenous
Environmental Network; IndyMedia Philly; Inigo Thomas - editor
Spectator.co.uk; Intelligencer Journal (PA); International
Herald-Tribune; InterPress Third World News Agency (IPS);
InterPressService; Irish Independent (Ireland); Jeff Rense; Journal of
Commerce (US); jsloan@...; KALX Radio UCB; KCAL-TV News; KNTV San
Jose; KNAU radio; KPFA FM Radio Pacifica; Las Vegas Review-Journal (NV);
Le Monde (France); Le Monde Diplomatique (France); Live@...;
London Free Press (Canada); Los Angeles Times - D.C. Bureau Chief; Los
Angeles Times Op-Ed Page Editor; LosAngelesTimes -Letters; Marty
Moss-Coane; MewsMax Managing Editor; MiamiHerald NationalNews; Mike
Moffitt - OnlineEd SFGate; Monterey County Post; Morning Call (PA);
Mother Jones Magazine; MSNBC; MSNBC Letters; MSNBC KNBC Los Angeles
(CA); MSNBC News Front; MSNBC Television News;
MSNBCInvestigates@...; National Post (Canada); National Review;
Navajo Hopi Observer; Navajo Times; NBC Dateline; NBC Nightly News; NBC
Online; New Scientist magazine; New York Observer; New York Times SrEd;
NewsCenter.org; Newsday (NY); NewsHour; NewsMax Editor; Newsweek Intl;
Newsweek webeditor; NewYorkTimes - Letters; Nexus Magazine; Niteline;
NPR Science Friday; NPR Living on Earth; NY Post news; NYPost Chris Shaw
MgEd; NY Times CH Wren; NYPost Letters/Editorial; Oakland Tribune (CA);
OASIS TV Kathy Close; Oasis-TV Robert Schnitzer; O'Reilly Factor;
Pacific News Service; Pacifica Network News; Phil Donahue; Philadelphia
Daily News; Philadelphia Inquirer (PA); Phoenix New Times; Press
Democrat -The (CA); Progressive Review; Public Media Center; Radio Free
Berkeley; Radio Free Monterey- James Mason; Reason Magazine; Richard
Emonson San Francisco Liberation Radio; Rolling Stone (US); Sacramento
Bee; Salon NewsEditor; San Diego Union Tribune (CA); San Francisco
Chronicle; San Francisco Examiner; San Jose Mercury News ( CA); Santa
Barbara Independent; Santa Barbara News Press; Santa Fe New Mexican;
Santa Fe Reporter; Seattle Post-Intelligencer (WA); Seattle Times (WA);
SF Bayview; SF IndyMedia Andy Matinog; Share International Media
Service; Sherman Skolnick; SJMN Glenda Chui (Sci); SJMN Becky
Bartindale; Spectator; Standard-Times (MA); Star Tribune; STRATFOR Inc;
Sydney Morning Herald (Australia); Talk of The Nation; Tehachapi News
Editor Carol Holmes; The Herald; The Nation; The New Australian; The
Spectrum; Theedge@...; Theinsiders@...; Threshold
editor; Time Magazine; Tom Teepen - CoxNews; Toronto Star (Canada); U.S.
News & World Report; USA Today Newspaper; Utne Reader; Valley News -
CFBostwick; Vancouver Province (Canada); Viewerservices@...;
Village Voice; Wall Street Journal (NY); Washington City Paper;
WashingtonPost; Washington Times; Whole Life Times; Wired Feedback;
Wired News; WorldNetDaily; WorldNetDaily - Editor; WorldNetDaily News;
Independent Media Center
Subject: why Gov. Davis for 14months ignoring overunity power technology
solution to energy crisis and war over oil?


RE: Gray Davis' ignoring for over a year of key overunity power technologies
experts' advice in face of energy crisis and US war policies to access
foreign oil sources

For Immediate General Release:

From: David Crockett Williams, October 10, 2002
gear2000@... 661-822-3309
Golden Hills, CA 93561
New Energy Solutions Yahoo!Group moderator
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/new-energy-solutions

Does the left hand know what the right hand is (or is not) doing, between
Governor Davis and his energy staff, CEC, CA Power Authority, CPUC, etc.,
or is this particular California Governor actually opposed to these new
fuel-less overunity power technologies? This should be a main issue in
his current re-election campaign, one way or another. Why isn't it?

We not heard a peep from Sacramento in over a year after I took
leading new energy technology scientists to visit and brief the Sacramento
offices of Governor Davis and the California Energy Commission about status
of availability of overunity power technologies as breakthrough scientific
developments to replace nuclear and fossil fuel power. Why? Our initial
infomation input to them is summarized at above website where new
developments have also been regularly posted. Has the Governor's energy
staff even read the materials we left them, or even checked this site since
those meetings August 1, 2001?

Will my yesterday's requested public comments submission* to the
California Public Utilities Commission, for tomorrow's public hearing,
prompt Governor Davis' energy staff to quickly investigate the current
status of availability of these technologies in time for a retrofit of
Southern California Edison's Mohave Power Plant with an overunity
power generator as a superior alternative to shutting that plant down
or authorizing $58 million for scrubbers to clean its coal burning exhausts?
* http://groups.yahoo.com/group/new-energy-solutions/message/62
which references my compilation "On correcting the ethics of modern
science to inaugurate its golden age" posted at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/new-energy-solutions/message/60
and Tom Bearden's "Overunity Power Technologies -- Let us simply
deal with the science" posted at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/new-energy-solutions/message/61

Why was the appointment made, cancelled, and then never rescheduled a year
ago for the overunity power tech briefing of CA Energy Czar David Freeman by
one of these experts who he knows from his 1970's testimony at energy crisis
hearings in the US Congress, former NASA Mars Mission scientist/astronaut
Dr. Brian O'Leary who was chief energy science advisor to energy crisis
committee chairman Congressman Morris Udall, and who went on to become
science and energy policy advisor and speechwriter on related issues to four
US presidential candidates beginning with Udall and ending with Jesse
Jackson? http://www.independence.net/~oleary

Has this information just "fallen through the cracks" of incompetency, or is
there a reason why this is being ignored -- such as the national security
"dual-use" secrecy concerns of the Federal government which is actively
preventing implementation of such overunity power technologies by overt and
covert means purportedly over fears that an enemy will get them and use for
military purposes?

The time has come to implement overunity power technologies by the State of
California and by the major energy corporations, in such a way so that
announcement of such developments will stabilize the economy and stock
market skittishness. Would Bill Simon be a better California Governor to
accomplish this? Or is it more likely that he and others beholding to the
energy/oil industry like President Bush will continue to stonewall these new
developments while global climate change and ozone layer depletion threatens
to "turn Earth into Mars" in the coming generations?

Our briefing team last year knocking on the governor's door included in
addition to Dr. O'Leary -- Dr. Fred B. Wood, Sr. (PhD Electrical Engineering
from UC Berkeley) of San Jose, a retired leading IBM engineer who is
considered one of the fathers of systems theory and a pioneer in the
transition/expansion of physics and engineering from electrical to
electronics engineering, who is a California certified engineer licensed to
certify engineering of such a Mohave Power Plant overunity power tech
retrofit, and who understands and there submitted the work of Lt. Col. (US
Army ret.) Thomas Bearden http://www.cheniere.org whose MEG (Motionless
Electromagnetic Generator) has been recently patented -- Hal Fox, Editor of
New Energy Journal and head of the Institute for New Energy
http://www.padrak.com/ine whose work also includes developments in LENT and
LENR with applications for neutralizing radioactive wastes onsite instead of
burying them at Yucca Mountain -- Mark Comings who is now with
Dynamis.Us and whose network includes some of the most prominent inventors
and scientists in this field -- and myself who has also given public input
to the US Department of Energy on such overunity power tech developments in
1998 and 2000 resulting in the DOE's public acknowledgement of its interest
in this field, and whose submissions for consideration included the work of
Joseph Newman who over several decades has been unsuccessfully fighting
government opposition for a US patent on his device and for understanding of
his mechanical theory of electromagnetism which he says predicted and
explains its overunity operation http://www.josephnewman.com, the work
of former MIT science writer Dr. Eugene Mallove, Editor of Infinite Energy
Magazine http://www.infinite-energy.com, the work of the late Bruce DePalma
http://www.depalma.pair.com, and the work of Adam Trombly (the
internationally patented Trombly-Kahn Closed Path Homopolar Generator, and
the Trombly-Farnsworth solid-state oscillating electromagnetic system "zero
point energy" fuel-less electricity generator he proposed for Mohave Power
Plant overunity tech retrofit in 1989, both developed and proven in the
1980's) who certainly hopes he will not have to return to the Middle East to
oversee extinguishing again of war created oil well fires like he had to do
after the Persian Gulf War http://www.projectearth.com

Perhaps the process of the recent organization of the California Power
Authority headed by David Freeman has inadvertently created a block in
communications on these matters between members of Governor Davis' energy
staff? Does the right hand know what the left hand is not doing?

Within the last few months even the Los Alamos National Laboratory has
published a technical article showing validity of the so-called "Cold
Fusion" effect experiments of 1989, denigrated by most energy scientists
then including DOE, under a new "banner" of theoretical (re-)labeling of one
aspect of these effects which they now term "sonofusion".

To help integrate understanding of conflicting theoretical and experimental
evaluations of these overunity power tech discoveries, I have just created a
new (by invitation only) technical discussion collaboration list at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/electro-magnetism-study-group to which will
be invited some of the top experts in this field including the scientist
recognized by DOE as a lead expert on "Zero Point Energy" theory which some
scientists feel has applications for understanding the various different
overunity power technologies' dynamics.

Quantum theory and other physics theories trying to understand the
mind-consciousness-matter observations of the "psi research" done in the
1970's at places like Stanford Research Institute, and involving prominent
lay researchers like Andrijah Puharich and Ira Einhorn on Uri Geller and
related "paranormal phenomena"
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ira-einhorn, give indications that there is a
"consciousness factor" involved in why these technologies have not already
come to fruition other than in purported covert development of advanced
electromagnetic weaponry by our government and its enemies.

Will the California and national American News Media now belatedly
fulfill their public responsibilty and trust by carefully investigating and
reporting on the above information and related issues?

I certainly hope so.

David Crockett Williams
Yahoo!Groups moderator, lists including:

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

New Energy Solutions Yahoo!Group
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dcwilliams

Electro-Magnetism Study Group Yahoo!Group
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/electro-magnetism-study-group