From: "Russ Jones"

Date: Tue Apr 2, 2002 5:53 am

Subject: RE: (jlnlabs) Hi, I have a question about the Bearden MEG...

Hi James,

I will attempt to answer some of the questions within your message below. All answers are IMHO of course.

-----Original Message-----

From: jamesqb2001

Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2002 5:10 AM

To: jlnlabs@yahoogroups.com

Subject: (jlnlabs) Hi, I have a question about the Bearden MEG...

------Q

I am not a scientist but I have been a regular reader of the J.L. Naudin website. I was very interested to hear that Professor Bearden and colleagues had got the patent for their MEG motor and should be marketing the product next year, hopefully. I just have a couple of questions that maybe someone here could help with?

I understand that the MEG has achieved COP >5 output, this is amazing in itself but I recall Prof. Bearden refer to the commercial units that may appear in the future as being able to allow a home to disconnect from the National Grid, if two future high-wattage units are produced. This would imply that the units would be self-running, with no need for any input after the device has been started. Has this been achieved yet and if not, how might it be achieved and is it likely to succeed?

-------A

There have been mixed results.

There is a problem collecting the extra energy and converting it into a conventional form of usable power. The technology, however, holds some promise and still requires more time to fully develop. As for likely to succeed, it is still too early to tell IMHO. The MEG is one tool out of many tools in the tool-box of new technology. It has not yet been fully researched and developed to full potential.

-------Q

When a "closed circuit" is talked about, does this refer to a state where the machine can run independent of any external energy input? i.e. some of the output energy is returned to the input to run the electronic circuits.

-------A

You mean "closed loop", and yes, it means the machine runs on a portion of the power it generates. The idea behind this is that a small "excitation" energy can be used to trigger a large avalanche of controllable power output.

-------Q

Another question which arises is my mind is this: Will this machine ever really make it to mass production, as one must consider the tremendous impact it would have on the oil industries and, therefore, the worldwide economy.

-------A

The advent of the automobile had major opposition by proponents of the horse-and-buggy and also from railroad supporters, but it only made our economy stronger by building independence and improvements into the transportation industry. I expect the same thing to occur with the emergence of new energy technologies such as the MEG.

It is true that new energy technology diminishes the value of oil for supporting the energy sector, however, the need for oil and its petroleum-based by-products is not likely to disappear anytime soon whether free-energy technologies become viable or not. There are many uses for oil products that are not related to gasoline and/or the use of oil products for energy production. New energy technologies on the open market have the effect of keeping oil-based energy prices in-check, which stabilizes the sector rather than destabilizing it.

In our free-market economy, if one industry (oil) suddenly decreases in value to some other industry (energy), all other industries will not simply topple over and die worldwide. Oil is forced to get smart and compete for market-share. This means lower oil prices, which helps consumers.

-------Q

I am not a conspiracy theorist but such a machine would literally change the world and I can see many people who would vehemently oppose it.

-------A

People who have vested interests in oil for energy production and the related infrastructure oppose new energy technology simply because it diminishes their market-share by diminishing the strangle-hold they have on consumers. This is just business. New energy technology gives consumers new choices, and relieves their dependency on any one technology. Diversity is a good thing.
Even if this technology is mass-produced in the next year, it takes many years to replace the existing infrastructure. The change will be gradual, and has already been under-way for a number of years now. The change I am talking about is the move towards a Hydrogen-based economy. Already many foreign transportation companies are using electric vehicles with Hydrogen-powered fuel-cells. I don't see any world economic collapse caused by this change. What difference would eliminating the new growing need for Hydrogen make? In twenty years, when it all runs on Hydrogen, we could just as easily make the same baseless claims that switching from Hydrogen to something else will cause worldwide economic collapse. It just ain't so.
We should remember that just as a diversified portfolio makes a strong and stable investment vehicle, a diversified selection of new energy technologies makes a strong and stable energy sector in the world economy.

-------Q

Some have said that a "free energy" machine would cause worldwide economic collapse, if this is the case, then surely drastic measures may be taken to ensure that such a thing does not happen.

-------A
Anyone who says free energy would cause worldwide economic collapse is uninformed for the reasons stated above. Change is ever-present in technology. We learn to do things in better ways. It's a fact of life, and the folks who ramble on about a worldwide economic collapse should spend more time studying economics and history, and get over it.
-------Q

Are there contingency plans in place in case of any outside attempts at disruption?

-------A

Like what? The new technology research business is already the most disrupted environment one can be in, fraught with perils and disaster.

Our inventors have been killed just for what they knew how to do.

They have been harassed and discredited, their families have been threatened, you name it.
Still, it has not been enough to deter them from continuing their work. Even the wading through endless reams of disinformation is not enough to stop them. They are a breed apart, and not able to be stopped by any means. This being said, if you honestly think we still need a contingency plan of some sort, by all means, let's hear it.
------Q

George "oil" Bush Jnr. would be most upset by any attempt to challenge the oil industry cartel, wouldn't he?!
------A
I'm sure Mr. Bush can take care of himself just fine. After all, he got to be the President of the US, right?
If you're suggesting, however, that developing free-energy technology is somehow un-American, or that it goes against American patriotism or principles, then you're barking up the wrong tree with that one.
America is all about innovation, and she has been since before the Industrial Revolution. We quickly tire of the status-quo, and we have no use for the mediocrity that strangles progress, knowing that it is this same mediocrity that is responsible for the continued pollution of our planet and destruction of our Natural resources.
We are certainly not happy with things the way they are when we can easily see for ourselves that things aren't right. We not only strive to make things better for ourselves, but we also strive to make things better for our children. This desire, among other things, creates a tremendous need to always make things better, to change things, to INNOVATE.
If staying dependant on foreign oil works for you then go for it.

Best Regards,

Russ Jones, Systems Engineer

Johnston Technical Services