Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Congres to view MEG?

Expand Messages
  • dtb1000
    The message below was copied from: Http://www.atomasoft.com/zpenergy/1017894087/index_html Demonstration of Bearden s MEG for Congress w/ Dr. Greer? Posted by
    Message 1 of 11 , Apr 8, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      The message below was copied from:

      Http://www.atomasoft.com/zpenergy/1017894087/index_html

      Demonstration of Bearden's MEG for Congress w/ Dr. Greer?

      Posted by Patrick Knowles on Wednesday April 03, @08:21PM

      Steven M. Greer, M.D. of the Disclosure Project has recently said
      that several members of the U.S. Congress have agreed to arrange for
      a
      demonstration in chambers of any proven over-unity device to members
      of the appropriate Congressional committees.

      Greer has been in touch with Dr. Bearden previously, and includes an
      interview with him in his book, Disclosure. Now that the MEG has been
      patented, will Dr. Bearden be working with the Disclosure Project to
      demonstrate it to Congress?

      I realize that if plans are already underway for such ademonstration,
      they may be sensitive and necessarily private at this point. But if a
      Congressional demonstration is not yet in the works, I hope
      Dr.Beardon will be in touch with Dr. Greer once again so that
      arrangements can be made. The patenting of the MEG could be a real
      breakthrough for Disclosure on the technological front. Does anyone
      know if Dr. Beardon is working with Dr. Greer at this point? Would Dr.
      Beardon like to comment on this?

      DTB
    • Dave N.
      Hi group, I emailed Tom on this - here s his response: Dear Dave, We know from hard personal experience with four other COP 1.0 systems that were legitimate
      Message 2 of 11 , Apr 10, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        Hi group,

        I emailed Tom on this - here's his response:

        Dear Dave,

        We know from hard personal experience with four other COP>1.0 systems that
        were legitimate but fell by the wayside, that at this stage one must
        single-mindedly focus on getting the large financial partner and funding
        required to set up the proper physics lab (not just an electrodynamics lab)
        to finish the project. If we split our efforts all over the map, or if we
        allow control of it to pass into other hands just to get some bucks, then
        the MEG will die right here in front of the required funding cliff (some $29
        million). If the control passes, it will simply be suppressed like many
        others have been.

        The absolute kiss of death is to get involved in all sorts of publicity and
        actions all over the map that deviate from the technical objective. That
        simply triggers every kind of critter that ever crawled out from under a
        rock, all over us. If enough critters are after you and all over you,
        eventually one or more will get in there and bite you with a poison fang,
        with high probability. So we will not do that. We are trying to deal with
        principals and major investment groups only, and then only with proper do
        diligence on both sides. We want them to check us out just as rigorously as
        we check them out. And we do and they do.

        That said, we are very sympathetic to what Steve Greer is doing, and
        supportive of it, and we fervently wish for his resounding success. He is
        an excellent person, well-seasoned and knowledgeable, highly dedicated, and
        a real mover and shaker on the world scene. Steve has many contacts,
        including with other COP>1.0 systems and inventors. The MEG is not the only
        game in town by any means. Steve is aware of several other legitimate
        systems, and is probably already working with those systems and their
        inventors. We accent again that there are other legitimate COP>1.0 systems
        other than the MEG, and Steve is aware of them and their statuses. All of
        them that I am personally aware of, also are at that funding cliff where
        they require substantial funding to go further and get to a producible
        device ready for production and marketing.

        The only way we can hope to succeed is keep focused on the final MEG
        research goal, with single-minded purpose. The situation on the MEG is as
        follows:

        The rights to the MEG are assigned to Magnetic Energy Ltd., whose CEO is Dr.
        James L. Kenny. Dr. Kenny --- not Tom Bearden --- is in charge of all
        matters with respect to the MEG, as approved by the Board of Directors. He
        is also one of the principal inventors of the MEG. The course of actions
        taken on the MEG is determined by Dr. Kenny and the Board of Directors, not
        by Tom Bearden as an individual. That is exactly as it should be.
        Incidentally, the acronym "MEG" was deliberately chosen so as to be named
        after Dr. Kenny's daughter. Had it not been for Lee's dogged persistence
        over several arduous years, there would not be a MEG today.

        What we have at present is a set of successful MEG lab experiment
        apparatuses. They are not by any means full-bore power systems ready to
        produce, sell, and power one's house, etc. Our first patent (with the
        simple material) has just issued. A second patent (with the more complex
        material) has been filed, as has a continuance on the first patent. We
        still have two additional patents to prepare and file.

        With that patent status, notice how extraordinarily sensitive we have to be
        with respect to public demonstrations. The patent laws determine what we
        can and cannot do at this stage, not public opinion. Else a single
        demonstration could unwittingly lose all the remainder of one's patent
        rights. The proper people to call that kind of shot are our excellent and
        long-suffering patent attorneys. And they are calling it precisely the way
        we are playing it.

        In the MEG, there are four unusual areas of physics involved, in addition to
        the standard electrical engineering aspects. Consequently, to ramp up the
        MEG to production size units, considerable research and development is
        required, which includes those unusual areas of physics (such as geometric
        phase and nonlinear oscillation control theory) also involved. It will
        require considerable funding to set up a proper lab in both the PHYSICS
        aspects and the electromagnetic aspects and finish the MEG. It isn't just
        electronics and electromagnetics equipment and staff that are required; that
        part is a piece of cake. It is the PHYSICS equipment, instruments, and
        staff that are required that are so expensive and critical. The MEG is a
        highly nonlinear unit, and there is no such thing as a "linear scale-up"
        factor for it, nor a linear functioning for it. It is also a nonlinear
        oscillation device, and ordinary linear oscillation theory does not hold.
        Neither does ordinary control theory. It is not a simple electromagnetics
        problem; that part of it we can easily handle. It's those four specialized
        areas of physics where the hard work really has to be done --- with VERY
        expensive instrumentation and technicians --- and it must be done if we are
        to evolve it to a practical and production unit.

        We are in serious negotiations with several major financial groups at
        present, in an effort to raise the funding for the lab and final development
        of the MEG to systems ready for mass production. All our guys are seasoned
        and experienced aerospace engineers, and we have been in all sorts of space
        and defense programs, systems, projects, simulations, etc. We know the
        technical development game inside out; our careers have been and are based
        on it and all its aspects. To even build a decent engineering model and
        simulation of the highly nonlinear MEG involving multidisciplinary functions
        is a formidable (but doable) undertaking; our guys have done exactly such
        projects in ballistic missile defense, various missile systems, space
        defense, NASA space hardware and systems, electronic warfare, directed
        energy weapons, ABM defense, etc. on a variety of projects. We have indeed
        developed and managed all the various aspects of development of just such
        highly nonlinear, multi-disciplined models and simulations. So we know what
        is required, what must be done, how to do it, and how much it will cost on a
        "bare bones" program. Bare bones for the MEG development and finishing is
        $29 million. There are partial programs that can be done for less, but that
        is what the finishing program costs.

        So our efforts are concentrated exclusively on obtaining a major financial
        partner, so we can set up the necessary physics and electrodynamics lab and
        staff with alacrity, and also obtain the services of four quite rare and
        very expensive specialists, one required in each of those special physics
        disciplines. We have some very hard but satisfying physics work to do, not
        publicity work and not just electrodynamics work.

        If we deviate from that path, then like so many others the MEG will simply
        wash away like a wave on the beach, just as has every other legitimate
        COP>1.0 system when it reached that "sheer cliff" of the major funding
        needed for the extraordinary nonlinear research to finish it and go from lab
        experiment devices to production units. Sadly, most of the folks managing
        the COP>1.0 systems that reached that cliff did not fully appreciate the
        formidable technical problems they faced, nor were they skilled enough to
        recognize the full nature of the beast and what exactly was required to
        finish it. We intend to do everything in our power to see that such does
        not happen to the MEG, if it is humanly possible to prevent it. If we
        succeed, we succeed. If we fail, we fail --- but we will have given it our
        very best shot.

        Best wishes,

        Tom Bearden
      • tim_perdue
        This sounds to me like they have not secured a financial partner and they are not really going into production in a friendly country as was asserted on Tom
        Message 3 of 11 , Apr 10, 2002
        • 0 Attachment
          This sounds to me like they have not secured a financial partner and
          they are not really going into production in a friendly country as
          was asserted on Tom Bearden's website. In other words, it appears
          that it is not any further along than the update on the website from
          last year.

          Tim
        • Horianopoulos, Chris
          I agree. Is this the case? Regards, Chris Horianopoulos Consultant-Trading Support Banc of America Securities Tel: 212 847 6979 ...
          Message 4 of 11 , Apr 11, 2002
          • 0 Attachment
            I agree. Is this the case?

            Regards,

            Chris Horianopoulos
            Consultant-Trading Support
            Banc of America Securities
            Tel: 212 847 6979


            > -----Original Message-----
            > From: tim_perdue [SMTP:tim_perdue@...]
            > Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2002 1:03 AM
            > To: MEG_builders@yahoogroups.com
            > Subject: [MEG_builders] Re: Congres to view MEG?
            >
            > This sounds to me like they have not secured a financial partner and
            > they are not really going into production in a friendly country as
            > was asserted on Tom Bearden's website. In other words, it appears
            > that it is not any further along than the update on the website from
            > last year.
            >
            > Tim
            >
            >
            >
            >
            > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
            > ADVERTISEMENT
            > Click Here!
            > <http://rd.yahoo.com/M=194081.1994012.3473453.1261774/D=egroupweb/S=170508
            > 3269:HM/A=1036972/R=0/*http://www.ediets.com/start.cfm?code=3466>
            >
            > <http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=194081.1994012.3473453.1261774/D=egroupm
            > ail/S=1705083269:HM/A=1036972/rand=895679017>
            >
            > Main page:
            > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MEG_builders>
            >
            >
            > To post a message to this group, send email to
            > MEG_Builders@yahoogroups.com
            >
            > To contact the moderator of this group, send email to
            > MEG_Builders-owner@yahoogroups.com
            >
            > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
            > MEG_Builders-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
            > <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
            >
            >
            _____________________________________________________________________
            IMPORTANT NOTICES:
            This message is intended only for the addressee. Please notify the
            sender by e-mail if you are not the intended recipient. If you are not the
            intended recipient, you may not copy, disclose, or distribute this message
            or its contents to any other person and any such actions may be unlawful.

            Banc of America Securities LLC("BAS") does not accept time
            sensitive, action-oriented messages or transaction orders, including orders
            to purchase or sell securities, via e-mail.

            BAS reserves the right to monitor and review the content of all
            messages sent to or from this e-mail address. Messages sent to or from this
            e-mail address may be stored on the BAS e-mail system.
          • pulsed_ignition
            Bearden has a reputation to uphold - unlike most people on these lists. In my talk with him he was hard-nosed, honest and to the point. If he says a prototype
            Message 5 of 11 , Apr 11, 2002
            • 0 Attachment
              Bearden has a reputation to uphold - unlike most people on these
              lists. In my talk with him he was hard-nosed, honest and to the
              point. If he says a prototype will prove it works, what's your
              problem? If anyone claims they have a prototype that will prove the
              value of the patent - maybe they are telling the truth! But why
              should they be expected to let every jerk that is interested, "TEST"
              it - with the famous promise "If it works - I will try to get the
              money from someone". IF IT DOESN'T WORK, the patent is as useless as
              the inventor is stupid.

              It is those that have no patent and a prototype hidden inside a magic
              black box that everyone should be suspicious of.

              I hope Bearden get his funding - almost as much as I hope to get my
              work funded.

              Chris Arnold
              http://members.aol.com/hypercom59/index.html

              --- In MEG_builders@y..., "Horianopoulos, Chris"
              <Chris.Horianopoulos@b...> wrote:
              > I agree. Is this the case?
              >
              > Regards,
              >
              > Chris Horianopoulos
              > Consultant-Trading Support
              > Banc of America Securities
              > Tel: 212 847 6979
            • Steve Williams
              Most credible scientists who honestly believe in what they are doing, and have made some new discovery, will encourage other jerks (to use your own term) who
              Message 6 of 11 , Apr 12, 2002
              • 0 Attachment
                Most credible scientists who honestly believe in what they are doing, and have made some new discovery, will encourage other "jerks" (to use your own term) who are so inclined to replicate it because it adds credibility to their findings, and allows their discovery to stand on its own merit, rather than just the words of an individual. Often replication points out errors in the discoverer's observations, so not only does it allow confidence/believability of the inventor's intentions, but also the inventor's correctness.

                Many exciting new technologies (fusion via acoustic cavitation is my favourite recent example), just as or even more significant as the would-be successful MEG are carried out in such an open scientific manner, where a new discovery is followed by publication, and then subsequent replication by others, and as such the patent system is designed to suit this, as publication may serve as valid prior art for the author to proceed with their patent, which, if the patent is successfully granted, is protected from the date of such publication.

                So we have this "scientist"/inventor claiming NOT ONLY a new discovery, but that every engineer and most physicists for the last hundred years are wrong, and that he is right, and that he has a seemingly ultimate solution to the world's energy crisis. But the answer and the proof are a secret. If its such a secret and it works, why say anything at all in the first place? - it only encourages those interested to dig deeper, and those skeptical to become more skeptical. So in answer to your question of "why let others test it" - answer - credibility.

                The meg is certainly an extraordinary claim, and its inventor consistantly makes the contradiction of complaining that the scientific world is too closed minded to accept it, and that engineers are too set in their ways, while never really presenting a clear solution. This serves, from scientific and investment community, only to invite scrutiny and disbelief, kindling the very same close mindedness that he speaks against - as a scientist himself no less. Particularly in a field historically riddled with fraud and misinformation one would expect a more open approach with such a claim were it valid.

                I suspect many of the members of this forum are here because we are intrigued by the concept, and suspect it may work, and for whatever reason, are willing to put time and effort, and resources, into exploring it, because of curiosity, or faith, or fascination, the MEG despite its questionable lack of available information, presents some unique questions for which the conventional explanations are not clear or sufficient. Even the less technical readers are taking the time to "keep up on the news" so to speak.

                If I were an investor, which I am not, I would certainly NEVER invest in something extraordinarily new that is not replicable. ESPECIALLY if it is already protected by prior art - there are lots of patents for devices that "dont work"   in one way or another.
                So myself I think its more prudent to ask - "if the idea is protected and its yours, why NOT let every jerk whos interested test it?" I myself would be quite grateful to those willing to put the time and effort into such an endeavor.

                   - Steve
                 
                 

                pulsed_ignition wrote:

                 Bearden has a reputation to uphold - unlike most people on these
                lists. In my talk with him he was hard-nosed, honest and to the
                point. If he says a prototype will prove it works, what's your
                problem? If anyone claims they have a prototype that will prove the
                value of the patent - maybe they are telling the truth! But why
                should they be expected to let every jerk that is interested, "TEST"
                it - with the famous promise "If it works - I will try to get the
                money from someone". IF IT DOESN'T WORK, the patent is as useless as
                the inventor is stupid.

                It is those that have no patent and a prototype hidden inside a magic
                black box that everyone should be suspicious of.

                I hope Bearden get his funding - almost as much as I hope to get my
                work funded.

                Chris Arnold
                http://members.aol.com/hypercom59/index.html

                --- In MEG_builders@y..., "Horianopoulos, Chris"
                <Chris.Horianopoulos@b...> wrote:
                > I agree.  Is this the case?
                >
                > Regards,
                >
                > Chris Horianopoulos
                > Consultant-Trading Support
                > Banc of America Securities
                > Tel:   212 847 6979
                 
                 
                 


                Main page:
                  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MEG_builders
                 

                  To post a message to this group, send email to
                  MEG_Builders@yahoogroups.com

                  To contact the moderator of this group, send email to
                  MEG_Builders-owner@yahoogroups.com

                  To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
                  MEG_Builders-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                 
                 
                 
                 

                Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

              • tim_perdue
                ... the ... Maybe. I d certainly like to believe him, but why won t he do a demo for some independent party that would be willing to vouch for him? In the
                Message 7 of 11 , Apr 12, 2002
                • 0 Attachment
                  --- In MEG_builders@y..., "pulsed_ignition" <hypercom59@a...> wrote:
                  > Bearden has a reputation to uphold - unlike most people on these
                  > lists. In my talk with him he was hard-nosed, honest and to the
                  > point. If he says a prototype will prove it works, what's your
                  > problem? If anyone claims they have a prototype that will prove
                  the
                  > value of the patent - maybe they are telling the truth!

                  Maybe. I'd certainly like to believe him, but why won't he do a demo
                  for some independent party that would be willing to vouch for him?
                  In the email that was posted here, he said he could not demo it
                  because of patent processes, which is false. Patent-pending devices
                  are not only demoed on a routine basis, they are also routinely sold
                  while the patent is still pending.

                  > It is those that have no patent and a prototype hidden inside a
                  magic
                  > black box that everyone should be suspicious of.

                  Patents mean nothing. Most patents amount to nothing. What matters
                  is a functioning, confirmed demonstration, which as far as I know,
                  does not yet exist.

                  Tim
                • tim_perdue
                  ... protected ... Yes, and if Tom is really just doing this to better the world and avert global nuclear war etc etc etc, why is he waiting for a patent to
                  Message 8 of 11 , Apr 12, 2002
                  • 0 Attachment
                    --- In MEG_builders@y..., Steve Williams <daemonphi@n...> wrote:
                    > So myself I think its more prudent to ask - "if the idea is
                    protected
                    > and its yours, why NOT let every jerk whos interested test it?" I
                    > myself would be quite grateful to those willing to put the time and
                    > effort into such an endeavor.

                    Yes, and if Tom is really just doing this to "better the world"
                    and "avert global nuclear war" etc etc etc, why is he waiting for a
                    patent to share his work?

                    I've been watching this closely for a few weeks now, and I think I
                    am comfortable in assuming that Tom is just another charlatan.

                    Tim
                  • pulsed_ignition
                    Steve, You have misconstrued the intended context of JERK as well as switched its reference. Jerks related to people that only want to TEST a new device
                    Message 9 of 11 , Apr 12, 2002
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Steve, You have misconstrued the intended context of JERK as well as
                      switched its reference. Jerks related to people that only want
                      to "TEST" a new device without doing anything to scientifically
                      validate what is seen. Jerks also promise to get funding for you only
                      after a complete explanation of function and undeniable proof is
                      provided - once provided, they disappear.

                      As for scientific research being carried out in the open - where you
                      referring to work being done in secret, in a government lab like
                      ORNL, like sonofusion. Yes, that's a pretty out in the open lab.

                      As for some genius publishing detailed documents prior to even
                      applying for a patent - - that publication could kill any rights.

                      I don't blame Bearden if he said EE's and scientists are stuck in
                      their ways - THEY ARE. New discoveries are almost always attacked -
                      like cold fusion. Eugene Mallove just posted a Navy report on the
                      apparent success of cold fusion - ah, but all the scientists swore
                      it "Couldn't" work.

                      On this point I have become thoroughly confused - you say "NEVER
                      invest in something extraordinarily new that is not replicable,
                      ESPECIALLY if it is already protected by prior art". So - if it
                      protected by prior art (patent) its not good to invest in because the
                      patent law is there to protect the inventor from others replicating
                      it without "PAYING" the inventor. What EXACTLY does it sound like you
                      are saying, Steve?????

                      MY device works each and every time I apply power. The problem is
                      that EE's and professional "Physicists" when confronted with never
                      before seen effects will, at first agree and then deny having seen
                      them. WHY, the Terror of scientific reprisals as with the P&F cold
                      fusion debacle is one reason. They refuse to stand up like men and
                      say, its real - it really does work, because if they do - their
                      fellows will attack them and their reputation. They know if
                      they "step out of line" - they are out for "GOOD". Just ask Pons &
                      Fleischmann about conformity. This is an effective "control means" in
                      modern science.

                      I wish Col. Bearden and his team the best success possible.

                      Best Regards,
                      Chris
                      http://members.aol.com/hypercom59/index.html
                      Tapping the ZPE field with Pulsed Plasma
                    • Steve Williams
                      Hi Tim! In response to your message I just want to clarify that my post is not intended to render judgement, merely to clarify the value and importance of
                      Message 10 of 11 , Apr 13, 2002
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Hi Tim!
                        In response to your message I just want to clarify that my
                        post is not intended to render judgement, merely to clarify the value
                        and importance of replication as it pertains to situations such as the
                        MEG. Many times I have been tempted to agree with your final
                        assesement, and many other times I have thought the opposite. We
                        really don't have all of the facts and can only speculate, so in my
                        opinion, while you are of course entitled to your own, and while I
                        agree the contradictions are questionable, I think for me, it is only
                        fair at this point not to render judgement, since my opinion at this
                        time can only be based on speculation. I think its good (and
                        important) to ask the questions, and consider the possibilities, and
                        excersize caution, but its dangerous (possibly even unnecessarily
                        damaging) to jump to conclusions prematurely.

                        To me, the work is much too fascinating, to get bogged down with this.
                        It is fortunate I think, that this message forum has remained mostly
                        focused on the intendedly productive technical issues, without having
                        gotten overly (but still adequately) involved with issues such as
                        investment, or legality.

                        - Steve


                        tim_perdue wrote:

                        > --- In MEG_builders@y..., Steve Williams <daemonphi@n...> wrote:
                        > > So myself I think its more prudent to ask - "if the idea is
                        > protected
                        > > and its yours, why NOT let every jerk whos interested test it?" I
                        > > myself would be quite grateful to those willing to put the time
                        > and
                        > > effort into such an endeavor.
                        >
                        > Yes, and if Tom is really just doing this to "better the world"
                        > and "avert global nuclear war" etc etc etc, why is he waiting for a
                        > patent to share his work?
                        >
                        > I've been watching this closely for a few weeks now, and I think I
                        > am comfortable in assuming that Tom is just another charlatan.
                        >
                        > Tim
                        >
                      • Cyril SMITH
                        Hi Tim, ... From: tim_perdue To: Sent: Saturday, April 13, 2002 3:09 AM Subject: [MEG_builders] Re:
                        Message 11 of 11 , Apr 13, 2002
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Hi Tim,

                          ----- Original Message -----
                          From: tim_perdue <tim_perdue@...>
                          To: <MEG_builders@yahoogroups.com>
                          Sent: Saturday, April 13, 2002 3:09 AM
                          Subject: [MEG_builders] Re: Congres to view MEG?


                          --- In MEG_builders@y..., Steve Williams <daemonphi@n...> wrote:
                          > > So myself I think its more prudent to ask - "if the idea is
                          > protected
                          > > and its yours, why NOT let every jerk whos interested test it?" I
                          > > myself would be quite grateful to those willing to put the time and
                          > > effort into such an endeavor.
                          >
                          > Yes, and if Tom is really just doing this to "better the world"
                          > and "avert global nuclear war" etc etc etc, why is he waiting for a
                          > patent to share his work?
                          >
                          > I've been watching this closely for a few weeks now, and I think I
                          > am comfortable in assuming that Tom is just another charlatan.

                          I don't think a charlatan (or should I say five charlatans, Tom is not the
                          sole inventor) would invest the considerable dollars necessary to employ
                          patent attorneys to get such a controversial patent through the USPO. No, I
                          think they really believe what they have measured shows their MEG to work.
                          And Tom really believes he knows the theory behind how it works.
                          Unfortunately Tom doesn't get his message over clearly, it takes a lot of
                          effort to wade through his verbage. And at the same time Tom is waving
                          other flags, which tend to obscure the issues. But that does not make him a
                          charlatan.

                          For what it's worth I have been involved in electromagnetics all my life (I
                          am now 67), I have been studying the MEG since it was first announced in the
                          Magnetic Energy Limited paper written by Tom et.al. (but mostly by Tom, it
                          has all his hallmarks), and I learn something new every day. Like how to
                          theoretically model the dynamics of magnetic circuits which you wont find in
                          many text books. I can demonstrate a transformer which behaves in a manner
                          which any good engineer would say is impossible. But by talking the
                          engineer through the theory (nothing fancy a la Bearden) I could get him to
                          accept that the demonstration is quite above board, and the reason the
                          engineer thought it couldn't work is down to his lack of knowledge.
                          Personally I don't think Tom's explanation holds water, but I do think the
                          MEG works and I am close to providing an alternative theory which would
                          satisfy most classical EM engineers. But I would say that wouldn't I?

                          Cyril
                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.