Date: Thu, 23 Apr 1998 13:37:19 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Stutz
To: jdecker@keelynet.com
Subject: Tesla news story

Hello --

I just left a message on your answering machine about this; I'm a reporter for Wired News and am writing about the International Tesla Society's convention that's happening this weekend (details at http://www.tesla.org/ ).

I was wondering if you were available for an interview (email or phone) about this and the technology that's being demonstrated; if you'd like to call collect, you can reach me at ***.***.****.

Thanks for your time.

Michael Stutz

---

Date: Thu, 23 Apr 1998 20:49:41 -0500
From: Jerry W. Decker
To: Michael Stutz
Subject: Re: Tesla news story

Hi Michael!

I was not planning on making the Tesla conference this year, so I really can't say anything about what's there. But I'll bet you a case of beer there is no working overunity device that is testable by others or for sale as an operating unit, a kit or working plans to build it yourself.

Don't get me wrong, I think highly of J.W. McGinnis and the Tesla guys in general and have been a long time supporter of their activities, however, sometimes you need some flash to get people to attend your conference....... When inventors or experimenters make a claim and offer to explain or demonstrate it at your conference, if there is any possibility of something that might work, you jump on it, but I wouldn't ever count on it as fact.

Many of us suffer from the 'want to believe' syndrome and so are not as critical as we should be. By critical I mean requiring proof, we generally trust the people making the claims, which has resulted in us being labeled as half-baked, gullible, crackpots, cranks, etc..

From my 30 some odd years experience in this area, most of the claims I've seen revolve around;

• 1) good faith claims based on what turn out to be erroneous measurements - here the inventor really believes they have something, yet when built and tested by others, the overunity results are found to be based on calculations derived from erroenous physical measurements

• 2) people who KNOW they have nothing, yet seek to get investors in their company using the form of 'partnerships' or 'franchises' where they play on people's greed. One guy asks $10,000 for a 'partnership', another asks $5,000 for a 'franchise'. Both offer 'rights to sell' the products resulting from this new discovery WHEN IT IS AVAILABLE...the hook is there is NO FIXED DATE OF PRODUCTION so that you NEVER see any hardware to sell to AT LEAST recoup your investment. That means you are giving them your money with NO assurance or guarantee of any opportunity to recover.

• 3) then there is the inventor who really does discover an anomaly or effect, yet they refuse to allow any independent testing or duplication out of fear (afraid someone will rip them off), paranoia (afraid the oil companies or government will threaten or kill the inventor or his family), ego (wants to retain full control and power over the discovery to ensure he goes down in history as the greatest discoverer).

IMHO, the only way any true overunity device will ever be absolutely proven is for it to run itself and power a load over a protracted period of time, 6 months, a year would be fine.

Because of the world changes that will NECESSARILY follow from practical proof of how to produce energy from the vacuum/aether/zpe/gravity and how to produce gravity control, the only way IMHO to release the information is FREELY so that all countries and peoples of the world may benefit.

This will best be done by FREELY providing the plans for the Proof of Principle (PoP) as detailed at http://keelynet.com/pop.htm and using the shareware document to ensure credit and some modest income is given to the inventor as detailed at http://keelynet.com/share.htm

Sure, keep the details for the big high power versions and sell those, but PROVE THE INITIAL EFFECT, in the form of the PoP. Instant credibility because anyone can build and test a desktop PROOF. If they choose to pursue it, either by working with the inventor or building on the initial PoP, it will result in all kinds of new discoveries and PRODUCTS which people can build, buy and USE.

Some of these free energy devices will require it to be kickstarted with an outside power source to get it running. Once it is running, the output power is folded back to the input so it becomes self-sustaining, then the extra energy is fed to a load.

IMHO, that load should ideally be resistive in the form of a heater or inductive as in a motor under mechanical load. The reason being that light intensity is subject to several variations ranging from an intermix of gas, unusual high efficiency filaments as with osmium opposed to tungsten, etc.. in the lamp which can confuse human perception. Yes, you can use LUX measurements to monitor for a consistent intensity, but my preference above all is a resistance heater.

With the load being a resistance heater, you can attach a thermocouple to it to show consistent heating along with how much current and voltage is being drawn by the heater.

The same technique applies to an inductive motor, except that you attach a mechanical load to the motor so that it provides a somewhat constant output torque (in horsepower) in addition to the current and voltage being used by the motor.

The error I continually see is measurements of power used by a load, with the output power compared to the input power to determine efficiency. The devices NEVER POWER THEMSELVES so are prone to all kinds of errors based on calculations of efficiency rather than the ultimate irrefutable proof of a self-sustaining device.

Self-sustaining operation is therefore my ultimate prerequisite as to the validity of a TRUE overunity, free energy device.

Where does the energy come from? Gravity and aether/zpe pervade EVERYTHING, therefore there is no such thing as a closed loop. It is a matter of TRANSLATING or transforming the gravity or aether/zpe inflows into mass, into a form we can use. That form can be either mechanical or electronic (magnetism, electrostatic or electromagnetism).

Well, that's my take on the entire field. To the best of my knowledge, there is NOT a working, self-sustaining overunity device that anyone can buy or build from a kit or plans.

People ask why we continue to devote time, money, effort and attention to the subject since nothing has resulted in the past 100 years or so.

In my opinion, our drive and devotion to the subject is due to some strange inner realization that we are in fact surrounded by unbelievable amounts of energy which are there for the tapping. Much like a puzzle you cannot walk away from, or if you do, you keep coming back to it.

All it takes is one breakthrough and the world will be all over this, many who are now RABID enemies of the entire field will then claim, they 'knew it all along'. We all expect such attitudes and put up with the majority who refuse to even consider the possibilities, let alone look into the various ways we all study to try to tap this incredible ambient energy.

The bottomline to our quest is the discovery and free release of the construction details to build a working overunity device which we fully expect to spread like wildfire and to be duplicated all over the world and to be put into practical use by all countries.

This single discovery will in turn spawn a science renaissance beyond anything we can now imagine. This renaissance will encompass not only physics and electronics but also MEDICINE and health because the aether/zpe inflows directly influence the function and health of living tissues.

If it would be of use to you or your readers, feel free to use this email or any part thereof as well as anything on the KeelyNet website.

KeelyNet is not here for entertainment, nor to attract attention. It started as a semi-private BBS with word of mouth recommendations only between serious researchers and experimenters. The inevitable migration to the Internet exposed us to all kinds of additional limelight which was not sought or solicited. We have a purpose, we have goals, we shall achieve those goals.

Michael, thanks for your interest, if there is anything I can do to help you in future, drop me a line. You'll know when we succeed!

---

Date: Fri, 24 Apr 1998 16:03:14 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Stutz
To: Jerry W. Decker
Subject: Re: Tesla news story Jerry-- Thanks for all the good comments. The story just went up at;

http://www.wired.com/news/news/technology/story/11898.html .

regards - m

---

From: Tebearden
Date: Fri, 24 Apr 1998 23:44:53 EDT
To: Jerry Decker
Subject: Re: Response to Wired Magazine request
Jerry,

Agree with most of your comments except a couple of fidgets.

• (1) A proper lab (e.g., a government certified lab testing to NIST and IEEE standards) can certainly determine whether a proposed overunity device is in fact of overunity efficiency. The person owning the device is permitted to be there with it, during all tests. Further, the exact test procedures, instruments, etc. are proposed to him in advance. When the test procedures are satisfactory, then the owner of the device (or other party such as his backer) signs a contract with the lab. On the assigned day, the team and instruments are there, calibration is guaranteed, and the tests are done exactly as agreed. The test lab doesn't give a hoot what theory you have, what you think, etc. They will CERTIFY what the instrumental measurements yielded. All big electronics and aerospace companies utilize these special labs.

• (2) Overunity is overunity. The device does not have to run itself, just produce sufficient power out WHEN RIGOROUSLY MEASURED AS ABOVE, INDEPENDENTLY. Note I do not prefer college profs measurements; in most cases, they are not at all measurement experts.

• (3) And there are working model overunity devices and processes. Anti-Stokes emission, e.g., has been certified and accepted as overunity for nearly 50 years. Here the medium puts out more energy than you put into it. (Obviously it gets the excess energy elsewhere; just where is a bone of contention). The Fiber fuse is a real ripcorker, and will put out lots more energy than you input to get it started. But it is destructive. However, and this is the weird part, you can often initiate it again in the opposite direction, in a fiber optics cable containing germanium in the core, and it will march back down the previously ruined cable, RESTORING THE CABLE AND FILLING UP THE HOLES AGAIN THAT IT PREVIOUSLY MELTED. And if you look into particle physics, you will find that every charge and every dipole is a "free energy" machine, extracting energy directly from the vacuum and outputting it (it's a broken symmetry in the vacuum flux). That too has been in particle physics for 40 years. It ain't in ELECTRODYNAMICS, which is a piece of unadulterated B.S., 130 years old, and still assuming a material ether. In fact, electrodynamics has nothing at all to say about what form EM entities exist in, in space. Sorry, but every textbook in the country is wrong, and that is easy to show.

• (4) In addition to the legitimate problems you named, the biggest o/u problem has been the absence of any legitimate theory of doing it, without violating the conservation of energy. The biggest part of that problem is the illogical insistence on using JUST ordinary EM concepts and theory! Well, ORTHODOX electrodynamics has been forcibly keel-hauled into equilibrium (i.e., any system prescribed by it is so forcibly brought into equilibrium with its environment; that is ASSUMED and they just changed the equations to MAKE it that way.) That means that it only prescribes that very limited set of permissible EM systems where some magical "geni" changes the system energy twice and freely, makes two new forces for free, but also carefully selects just how he does that so that the two new forces are equal and opposite! That's called "symmetrical regauging" of the equations -- check it out in Jackson, Classical Electrodynamics. Now if you believe that such a system is the SAME system as one which has no "geni", has not had its energy changed twice, and has not had itself placed under stress by two new and equal and opposite forces continually applied by that geni, then I've got a bridge down the road I bought real cheap last week, and will sell it at a good price!

• (5) In other words, electrodynamics PROHIBITS overunity EM systems, as presently severely mangled and curtailed. So if we insist that such systems are possible after all, then the first thing we must do is point out where orthodox EM "missed it," and where the errors in it are. IF WE CANNOT DO THAT, WE HAVE NO UNDERSTANDING AT ALL OF WHAT IT TAKES TO DO A FREE ENERGY EM DEVICE. Just waving our hands and shouting "It's resonance! It's resonance!" is not worth a tinker's dam. We've had LC resonance since the beginning, and it alone has never added a single free watt to the powerline.

• (6) What we really are doing, when we insist that nature does permit an overunity EM system because it permits one that is open to its environment and freely receives energy (regauges) from it, we are insisting that present electrodynamics is seriously flawed in its very FOUNDATIONS. So if we have a FOUNDATIONS PROBLEM, then we need to do some FOUNDATIONS WORK.

• (7) Oh, and we DO have EM systems already, that "run themselves" and power a load simultaneously. Even in orthodox electrodynamics, the charge is the source of an unending stream of energy, which pours out from it in all directions, to the end of the universe, filling the entire universe with what is called the "field" and with "field energy." Its potential also reaches to all the universe, and is filled with energy. And the charge "never runs down." So every single electrical charge, magnetic charge, and EM dipole, already is a RECOGNIZED, CERTIFIED FREE ENERGY MACHINE.

• (8) And here's the rub. Remember how the orthodox scientists call us free energy researchers lunatics because (they claim) we are advocating perpetual motion machines? Well, it's the orthodox electrodynamics that advocates perpetual motion machines! That noble subject would have us believe that the charge and the dipole CREATE FROM NOTHING all that energy that it puts out all across the universe! Well, the most sacrosanct law in all of physics is probably the master conservation of energy law: Energy cannot be created nor destroyed. If you claim that it can, the physicists tell us, then you are claiming "perpetual motion machines." Ha! The electrical physicists themselves ALREADY claim that the charge is the source of all that energy, and imply that it just "creates" all that energy from nowhere.
  Anyhow, we really must have some serious work on overhauling electrodynamics, for it is woefully, woefully flawed. Even scientists such as Feynman and Wheeler have admitted such. Fortunately, it appears that two really tremendous theoreticians are now contracted to "rewrite" electrodynamics. When they get it done, we shall have a far better electrodynamics than we now have.
  Before their ARBITRARY alteration and curtailment by the Lorentz symmetrical regauging, the Heaviside-Maxwell equations DO INDEED prescribe permissible overunity electrodynamic systems. But the electrodynamicists ARBITRARILY discarded all such systems, in fact throwing away many, many more EM systems than were retained by the altered and curtailed theory.
  Anyway, there are my "fidgets"; otherwise, you gave him (in my opinion) a really good reply.
  Oh, and by the way: Multivalued potentials arise readily in magnetics theory. That means that the darn field itself can sometimes have a point where, on the left side of that point and as close to it as you wish, the field has one value, but on the right side of that point and just as close to it as you wish, the field has a completely different value. It is already known in electrodynamics that integration of the force around the loop need not zero for such a multivalued potential case, because the field is nonconservative for some integration paths.
  Simply put, this means that YOU CAN IN THEORY BUILD A PERMANENT MAGNET ENGINE, IF YOU TAKE ADVANTAGE OF A MULTIVALUED MAGNETIC POTENTIAL IN A CLOSED PATH WHERE THE FIELD IS NONCONSERVATIVE (i.e., where it integrates to a nonzero value as a line integral around that path). This is rigorous. Unfortunately, all the orthodox magnetics engineers do everything known to man to eliminate the multivalued potential, or reduce it to insignificance. That way, the illusion that the field is conservative IN ALL CASES is supported, and students are deceived into thinking that the conservative EM field is an absolute, around ALL paths of integration, and for ALL conditions of potentials. That is just not true.
  Cheers - Tom

  ---

  Date: Sat, 25 Apr 1998 01:12:22 -0500
  From: Jerry W. Decker
  To: Tebearden
  Subject: Re: Response to Wired Magazine request
  Hi Tom!
  Here is what came of that email to WIRED magazine writer Michael Stutz...here is Michaels' email (posted earlier in this document).
  Thanks so much for the good comments, there are a few points I don't agree with but its because I am just tired of all the claims and no working anything I or anyone else can buy or build (that will work as claimed).
  Don't you really want to see a working technology, in use by everyone across the world before your time is up?? I know I certainly do, guess that's why I've finally decided (about a year ago), to just stop the wishful thinking and mistakes from calculated efficiencies.
  To my view, as long as there is any outside power connected, it ain't o/u, that includes batteries in the circuit that could add unexpected power from anomalous or bizarre chemical reactions.
  Well, if I have to be chastised, I can think of NO ONE who I would prefer to do it than Tom Bearden.......for me not recognizing or allowing for calculated o/u.
  Can I buy one and run my house or car?? I rest my case...we do differ on what is acceptable as to proof of true o/u....guess I'm turning into an old grouch...but none of us are getting any younger....and I really want to see working free energy devices before I go to the next channel......
  Thanks Tom, stay healthy and vital, we all have work to do, I promise when I get a working standalone free energy device that isn't a 'lab queen' as my late friend Arthur Coleman used to say, I will send you a comp version.......seeya!!!
  Jerry W. Decker / jdecker@keelynet.com
  http://keelynet.com / "From an Art to a Science"
  Voice : (214) 324-8741 / FAX : (214) 324-3501
  KeelyNet - PO BOX 870716 - Mesquite - Republic of Texas - 75187