posted 03-09-2004 04:23 PM            

Do you really think you're going to get a phone call, or a knock at your door bringing you such evidence? What government agency is going to say, "Hey Lexta, guess what we suppressed today?".

posted 03-09-2004 04:36 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by KNOW-THIS:
Do you really think you're going to get a phone call, or a knock at your door bringing you such evidence? What government agency is going to say, "Hey Lexta, guess what we suppressed today?".

---

No, I don't. But I'm going to need a little more than "Know-This speculates that someone is being threatened" to conclude that it is probably true.

posted 03-09-2004 04:44 PM            

Nor should you immediately rule out the possibility either. Sometimes things aren't always completely overt.

posted 03-09-2004 11:27 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by letxa2000:
I have started a new thread on this because it has the potential of getting the radar thread way off-topic.

---

Next time you choose to start a NEW thread in response to a post, please have the courtesy to paste the original post in its entirety. Your choosing to respond to bits and pieces does not represent the context of the original post. Tsk, Tsk. Such unethical behavior.

quote:

---

Originally posted by letxa2000:
Credentials provided by JerseyBluEyz.

Here are Thomas E. Bearden’s credentials:
- Lieutenant Colonel U.S. Army (Retired).
- President and Chief Executive Officer, CTEC, Inc.
- MS Nuclear Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology.
- BS Mathematics, Northeast Louisiana University.
- Graduate of Command & General Staff College, U.S. Army.
- Graduate of Guided Missile Staff Officer's Course, U.S. Army (equivalent to MS in Aerospace Engineering).
- Numerous electronic warfare and counter-countermeasures courses.

Letxa: The only thing in the above that seems remotely relevant to the area in which he claims to have revolutionary knowledge is nuclear engineering. The rest of the above is "filler"…

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by letxa2000:
…that has no more bearing or importance than my expertise on physics because I happen to be a software engineer, the owner and president of a small company, and speak two languages. Those are all nice points on the resume but does not increase my credibility as a physicist.

---

I did NOT ask you what your credibility was as a physicist! I asked - What are YOUR credentials? So, of the credentials you did give me, the fact that you are bilingual means nothing (I am fully bilingual as well – no big deal). Since we have agreed that Bearden being a President and CEO is unimportant, then I can also say that your being Owner and President of a small company is unimportant. So this leaves us with the fact that you are a software engineer currently looking for career fulfillment. (I could have put that in uglier terms) *smooch*

quote:

---

Originally posted by letxa2000:
Please name just one lie from my previous post.

---

LIE! In Lexta’s own words: The attitude of the USPTO is pretty much to grant any patent that looks novel (or which they cannot understand) and let the courts sort it out later if anyone objects to their obviousness or novelty.

LOLOLOLOL! That is sooooo silly!

I’m glad I was able to teach you some patent terminology though – novelty and obviousness. You can add that to your repertoire and use it elsewhere so you can sound like you know what you’re talking about where patents are concerned. I would LOVE for you to call ANY Registered Patent Attorney and tell them how Patent Examiners issue grants based on their lack of understanding in their field. Be sure to tell us what they said. You can bet that I’ll then go and ask some Examiners AND Attorneys to make an unbiased response or two based on your statement above.

Just so you know, there are 7 MAIN Patent Technology Centers, with approx. 50 sub units and over 250 individual art units. The computer Technology Center - Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security - is comprised of 7 sub units and 45 individual art units. With our current leap in technology, the USPTO could definitely use some expansion in that field of invention. BUT - I’d sure like to see someone with any LAME U.S. patent file it in foreign in either the European Community or Japan! You’d know in a second if it was lame! LOL! Well, maybe not a second but that patent would be REJECTED faster than you could pay your filing fees!

I think that you are a quack and your NAADP program is quite obvious and not novel. And since it is so easy to get a patent grant these days, I’ll bet you could get one for your NAADP program.

quote:

---

Originally posted by letxa2000:
If you think our patent system is working then we've got bigger things to discuss than Bearden.

---

Are you implying that our government structure is not as sound as it should be? That it might even be corrupt and improperly unstructured on this level? Imagine that! So, when it suits your needs, government-backed information is “on the money” and totally based in fact. I got your motus operendi there Mister! Funny - you say we do the same thing!

quote:

---

Originally posted by letxa2000:
But I'm not the one claiming revolutionary claims in physics that have been rejected by physicists and students of physics around the world. I did research his claims and they've been thoroughly rejected by physicists. I don't think they're all in on some conspiracy to discredit Bearden. Since I am not a physcist I must conclude, on balance, that his claims are a load of fertilizer.

As soon as I see Bearden's MEG device in my car or powering my computer I'll gladly eat my words and even drive over to New Jersey in my brand new MEG car and kiss your feet. Literally. Until then, and your friend's comments notwithstanding, I see no reason to retract my observation that Bearden is a quack.

---

You getting fresh? Don’t get me started now! hee, hee.

It is sad to think that you are such a disbeliever in free energy. What a waste of a good mind. This type of negative and “it’s impossible” thinking is one small part of the global mind pattern that keeps this technology from its fruition! If you would spend a little time searching the net, you’ll find many free energy type devices have been built AND are being used by the individual inventors.

My inventor friend, that you so conveniently discarded, has created a device that gives him at least 3 times the gas mileage per full tank of gas. He has also built an anti-gravitic device and is currently building a larger one. And yes, he has filed those useless patent applications. I knew another man in SC that built an engine that ran on water – he was in the process of obtaining funding to file a useless patent application too.

I’m sorry that you don’t get around much to meet these type of progressive movers and thinkers. That is what happens when you have a closed mind. Have you ever heard the expression - like attracts like? Well it’s true! Haven’t you ever noticed that when you go through a life change or a new realization that raises your level of awareness, everything around you changes as well? If not, I am truly sorry you haven’t experienced that (I am not being fresh here)! And before you go twisting my words, I met both of these men outside of my field of practice. Work had NOTHING whatsoever to do with my coming across this technology.

quote:

---

Originally posted by letxa2000:
Of course, I tend to believe that the governmnent isn't suppressing technology and that Bearden is wrong. But in the context of this forum if I could get people to admit either of those to be the case I'd feel I'd accomplished something.

---

Why on Earth would any of us admit to either of these lies? If that is your purpose here, you are barking up the wrong tree and had better set yourself some other achievement goals.

With regards to your statement that the Government does not suppress technology. OMG! There is NO WAY that someone your age can be as naïve to even suggest something like that to be true! What is your deal? I'll tell you what I feel. I believe that you use words, as a form of control and as an attention getter, through these debates. I will not even get into the symbolism of this type of behavior. Go ahead – I’m expecting it – deny it. The first, foremost, and typical ego response is immediate defense and denial of negative behaviors.

Back to the functionality of our world. Our current Administration is not only suppressing technology and information, but they are purging, censoring, and blacklisting scientists and engineers whose work threatens the profits of all the elitist’s pockets!

A 33 page report entitled – Politics and the Bush Administration – was prepared by a prominent Congressman, Henry Waxman (D-CA).

Read the full report here: http://www.house.gov/reform/min/politicsandscience/pdfs/pdf_politics_and_science_rep.pdf

The brief executive summary - http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2003/Bush-Science-Abuse-Report7aug03.htm - states the following (among other things):

Historically, agencies — such as the National Institutes of Health, the Food and Drug Administration, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the Environmental Protection Agency — have had global reputations for scientific excellence. Recently, however, leading scientific journals have begun to question whether scientific integrity at federal agencies has been sacrificed to further a political and ideological agenda. As the editor of Science wrote earlier this year, there is growing evidence that the Bush Administration “invades areas once immune to this kind of manipulation.

At the request of Rep. Henry A. Waxman, this report assesses the treatment of science and scientists by the Bush Administration. It finds numerous instances where the Administration has manipulated the scientific process and distorted or suppressed scientific findings. These actions go far beyond the typical shifts in policy that occur with a change in the political party occupying the White House.

Does that convince you? Probably not! So I present to you, the only “informed” person on the face of this planet, that has not heard of a report issued by many scientists in February 2004 entitled - Scientific Integrity in Policymaking -- An Investigation into the Bush Administration’s Misuse of Science.

Read the full report here – http://www.UCSUSA.org/documents/RSI_final_fullreport.pdf .

The brief Executive Summary - http://www.UCSUSA.org/documents/RSI_final_exsum.pdf - states the following (among other things):

More than 60 leading scientists—including Nobel laureates, leading medical experts, former federal agency directors and university chairs and presidents—issued a statement calling for regulatory and legislative action to restore scientific integrity to federal policymaking. According to the scientists, the Bush administration has, among other abuses, suppressed and distorted scientific analysis from federal agencies, and taken actions that have undermined the quality of scientific advisory panels.

This administration has obstructed that freedom and distorted that objectivity in ways that were unheard of in any previous administration.

Do you get it now? Open that mind you insist is not closed Letxa! If that still isn’t enough for you, go to the Union of Concerned Scientists website and read about their current concerns - http://www2.ucsusa.org/index.cfm

Are you convinced yet, or do I need to provide you with more proof of suppressed information? That, and all the other suppressed examples in this thread, merely scratches the surface. There is SO MUCH more out there! Please tell me you get it! You’ll probably disagree just to send me off on a fruitless search – ha! Well, guess what? I won’t do it anyway - ha!

Quote to Ponder: Tinkering with scientific information, either striking it from reports or altering it, is becoming a pattern of behavior. It represents the politicizing of a scientific process, which at once manifests a disdain for professional scientists working for our government and a willingness to be less than candid with the American people - Roger G. Kennedy, former director of the National Park Service, responding to the doctoring of findings on Yellowstone National Park, June 2003.

posted 03-10-2004 09:32 AM            

quote:

---

Filler??? Do you actually believe that a Mathematics Degree is not necessary in the Nuclear Physics or any of the Science fields? I agree that I could have scratched off the fact that he is a retired Lieutenant Colonel, BUT that gives credibility to his long standing commitment to a military career and would indicate a higher level of knowledge needed in those WEAPONS RELATED courses. Although, I could have scratched off the fact that he is a President and CEO of a corporation - that is not indicative of any level of knowledge and understanding in the free energy field, or any field for that matter.

---

I'm not saying that mathematics is useless for nuclear engineering. I'm saying that, lacking a degree or some specific knowledge in physics, that the mathematics degree doesn't give him any special qualifications in the area of physics. Nuclear engineering is not physics, and nuclear engineering doesn't have a whole lot to do with his MEG theory, at least as I understand it. His knowledge of weapons also seems irrelevant except for the weak tie-in that he thinks "scalar technology" was implemented by the Russians--even though the article he shows (posted below from his site) suggests the "fantastic weapon" is just nuclear. The troop cuts, according to what we can see of the article which is posted out of context, are due to the power of their nuclear weapons.

quote:

---

I did NOT ask you what your credibility was as a physicist! I asked - What are YOUR credentials?

---

My credentials are completely irrelevant in this discussion. We're talking about crackpot physics being proposed by a quack. His credentials are not impressive to make such a theory and given that it was rejected by real physicists and real physics students it seems probable that it's nonsense.

Now, if you want to have a discussion on software engineering and I say something you don't believe on that topic you are fully within your right to ask me what my qualifications on that are and I'd be happy to provide them. But my qualifications are not important in a disucssion on Bearden.

quote:

---

LIE! In Lexta’s own words: The attitude of the USPTO is pretty much to grant any patent that looks novel (or which they cannot understand) and let the courts sort it out later if anyone objects to their obviousness or novelty. LOLOLOLOL! That is sooooo silly!

---

Please see my previous links about rediculous patents issued in my area of experience. I'm glad to hear that perhaps this ineptness does not extend to other fields, but in the tech industry the USPTO is in bad shape and does issue worthless and silly patents that are not novel, that do have examples of prior art, and are obvious to those in the field.

quote:

---

I’m glad I was able to teach you some patent terminology though – novelty and obviousness. You can add that to your repertoire and use it elsewhere so you can sound like you know what you’re talking about where patents are concerned.

---

I'm in the tech industry. We've been dealing with the USPTO and their absurdities for years. "Novel" and "obvious" are nothing new to me. Don't flatter yourself.

quote:

---

Are you implying that our government structure is not as sound as it should be? That it might even be corrupt and improperly unstructured on this level? Imagine that! So, when it suits your needs, government-backed information is “on the money” and totally based in fact. I got your motus operendi there Mister! Funny - you say we do the same thing!

---

When have you ever heard me deny that our government isn't corrupt? I've never said any such thing! That I don't believe it is corrupt in the way people here think it is (being a part of 9/11, controlling the weather with NEXRAD, etc.) does not mean I think it is squeaky clean. But just because it isn't squeaky clean doesn't mean it is guilty of every absurd conspiracy theory out there.

quote:

---

It is sad to think that you are such a disbeliever in free energy. What a waste of a good mind. This type of negative and “it’s impossible” thinking is one small part of the global mind pattern that keeps this technology from its fruition! If you would spend a little time searching the net, you’ll find many free energy type devices have been built AND are being used by the individual inventors.

---

What's on the Internet is a dime a dozen. That's why you get sites like RadarMatrix. Does that mean that NEXRAD is controlling the weather? No, it just means that RadarMatrix is bogus. Now, unless I go and visit in person each site that claims a free energy device how am I supposed to know the real thing from a RadarMatrix-type bogusness? Given that I can't visit and see each claim in person it is my logical position that if such a wonderful device existed that I'd hear about it elsewhere and would eventually be able to buy it.

"Free energy" violates the known laws of physics. It is completely reasonable to be hesitant to believe such claims until they are independently confirmed by disinterested third parties. I'd love for free energy to be true, but healthy skepticism on this issue is very reasonable. In all honesty, anyone that isn't skeptical of free energy claims is gullible.

quote:

---

My inventor friend, that you so conveniently discarded, has created a device that gives him at least 3 times the gas mileage per full tank of gas. He has also built an anti-gravitic device and is currently building a larger one. And yes, he has filed those useless patent applications. I knew another man in SC that built an engine that ran on water – he was in the process of obtaining funding to file a useless patent application too.

---

First, your friend's device that gives him 3 times the gas mileage is efficiency, not free energy. I have no doubt that that is possible.

Anti-gravitic device? Sounds cool and while I'm not as skeptical about that as free energy, I still won't believe it until I see someone floating down the street on their hoverboard like Michael J. Fox did in Back to the Future II.

An engine that runs on water? Again, I'm not as skeptical about that as I am about free energy, but I'd still have to see it work to believe it. The idea in the past has been to extract the hydrogen from water, but it takes more energy to get the hydrogen out than you get from burning the hydrogen. If he has found a way around that, great! I'll look forward to buying a car that runs on water.

quote:

---

I’m sorry that you don’t get around much to meet these type of progressive movers and thinkers. That is what happens when you have a closed mind. Have you ever heard the expression - like attracts like? Well it’s true! Haven’t you ever noticed that when you go through a life change or a new realization that raises your level of awareness, everything around you changes as well? If not, I am truly sorry you haven’t experienced that (I am not being fresh here)! And before you go twisting my words, I met both of these men outside of my field of practice. Work had NOTHING whatsoever to do with my coming across this technology.

---

Closed-mindedness has nothing to do with healthy skepticism. Just because I don't believe these things NOW doesn't mean I can't. I just need to see more than a website to convince me. These are multi-billion dollar (maybe even multi-trillion, over the long term!) ideas if they work. I simply do not believe that there is anyone with enough money that could make these things not be commercialized if they actually worked.

quote:

---

With regards to your statement that the Government does not suppress technology. OMG! There is NO WAY that someone your age can be as naïve to even suggest something like that to be true! What is your deal? .... Does that convince you? Probably not!

---

I'm not doing this right now. I'm neck-deep in radar anomalies and now I've branched into Bearden. I'm not going to do the entire "the government is concealing energy technologies" debate right now. I simply don't have time.

posted 03-10-2004 12:10 PM               

quote:

---

Actually, I'd prefer to see some evidence that disputes my original assertion that Bearden is a quack

---

Your words speak for themselves. So now we should debate on the terms YOU made up.

What are your credintial to prove he is a quack or that his science is not good?

NONE, therfore you are expressing opinion.

posted 03-10-2004 12:25 PM            

Holy Moly Mojo! Please! I just love going around in big old circles don't you?

posted 03-10-2004 12:35 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by letxa2000:
This is all fine and good, but what can you tell me about Bearden that would convince me that he isn't a quack selling his $75-$150 books on the Internet?

---

Sorry - but convincing a closed mind of anything is a fruitless effort. I'm not wasting any more of my time doing so.

It totally slipped my mind last night to give you another article as part of my post – must have been too late last night! Talk about Technology Suppression! See the article for the introduction and closing (which are also interesting!). I'm through here!
http://www.mandalavillage.org/reading/tec_enertech_suppression.htm

Hydrogen Power

Yull Brown - from Sydney Australia developed a method of extracting hydrogen from water in 1978 and utilising it as a car fuel and fuel for welders. After much publicity (see The Bulletin (Aust) Aug 22, 1989) he had managed to raise over 2 million dollars but has failed to fully develop his invention.

Francisco Pacheco - an inventor from Bolivia created the "Pacheco Bi-Polar Autoelectric Hydrogen Generator" (US PAT #5,089,107) that separates hydrogen from seawater. He has built successful prototypes that have fueled a car, a motorcycle, a lawn mower, a torch, a boat, and most recently in 1990 he energised an entire home in West Milford. After many conferences (including U.N.) and public exhibitions proving the inventions worth, the wider community is still unable to utilize this technology.

Edward Estevel - from Spain developed a classic 'water to auto engine'system in the late 1960's extracting the hydrogen out of water to use as fuel. This system was highly heralded, then sank among other such 'high hope' hydrogen systems amid rumors of foul play.

Sam Leach - of Los Angeles developed a revolutionary hydrogen extraction process during the mid seventies. The unit easilyextracted free hydrogen from water and was small enough to fit under the hood of automobiles. In 1976 two independent labs in LA tested this generator with perfect results. Mr M.J. Mirkin who began the Budget car rental system purchased the rights to the device from the inventor who was said to be very concerned about his personal security.

Rodger Billings - of Provo, Utah headed a group of inventors that developed a system converting ordinary cars to run on Hydrogen. Instead of using heavy hydrogen tanks, he used metal alloys called Hydrides, to store vast amounts of hydrogen. When hot exhaust gases passed through these Hydride containers it released the gas to burn in the standard engines. Billings estimated the conversion would cost around US$500 and greatly improve fuel consumption.

Archie Blue - an inventor from Christchurch, New Zealand developed a car that runs purely on water by the extraction of hydrogen. An alleged offer of 500 million dollars from "Arab interests" was not enough to convince him to sell but never-the-less he has been unable to take his engine to the market place.

Electric Engines

Wayne Henthron - from Los Angeles built an "Electromatic Auto" in 1976 that managed to regenerate its own electricity. In normal stop and go driving it gave several hundred miles of service between recharges. The system worked by the wiring of the batteries to act as capacitors once the car was moving along with four standard auto alternators acting to keep the batteries charged. With little official interest in his system the inventor resolved to make the car available to the public to do so, is now involved with the World Federation of Science and Engineering - 15532 Computer Lane, Huntington Beach, CA, 92649.

Joseph R. Zubris - developed in 1969 an electric car circuit design (US PAT #3,809,978) that he estimated cost him $100 a year to operate. Using an old ten horse electric truck motor, he worked out a unique system to get peak performance from his old 1961 Mercury engine that he ran from this power plant. The device actually cut energy drain on electric car starting by 75%, and by weakening excitation after getting started, produced a 100% mileage gain over conventional electric motors. The inventor was shocked to find the lack of reaction from larger business interests, and so in the early seventies began selling licenses to interested smaller concerns for $500. Last known address was Zubris Electrical Company, 1320 Dorchester Ave, Boston, Ma, 02122.

Richard Diggs - developed at an inventor's workshop (I.W. international) his "Liquid Electricity Engine" that he believed could power a large truck for 25,000 miles from a single portable unit of his electrical fuel. Liquid electricity violated a number of the well known physical laws that the inventor pointed out. The inventor was also aware of the profound impact the invention could have upon the world's economy - if it could be developed.

B. Von Platen - a 65 year old Swedish inventor made a major breakthrough in the field of Thermo-electric engines with his "Hot and Cold Engine" - based on the fact that wires of different metals produce electricity if they are joined and heated, the inventors secret breakthrough is said to give more than 30% more efficiency than regular motors, and with a radioactive isotope for power (hmmm?!) it could be completely free from fossil fuels. Volvo of Sweden bought the rights to this in 1975.

Steam Engines

Oliver Yunick - developed a super efficient steam engine in 1970 (Pop. Sci. Dec.1970) able to compete admirably with combustion engines.

DuPont Laboratories - built one of the most advanced steam engines in late 1971 using a recyclable fluid of the Freon family. It is assumed to contain no need for an external condenser, valves, or tubes. (Pop.Sci.Jan1972)

William Bolon - from Rialto, California, developed an unusual steam engine design in 1971, that was said to get up to 50 miles to the gallon. The engine used only 17 moving parts and weighed less than 50 pounds and eliminated the usual transmission and drive train in an automatic. After much publicity, the inventors factory was fire bombed with damages totaling $600,000 . Letters to the Whitehouse were ignored so the inventor finally gave up and let Indonesian interests have the design.

Air Power

Roy J. Meyers - from LA built an air powered car in 1931. (air has been used for years to power localised underground mine engines) Myers, an engineer, built a 114lb, 6 cylinder radial air engine that produced over 180 HP. Newspaper articles at the time reported that the vehicle could cruise several hundred miles at low speeds.

Vittorio Sorgato - of Milan, Italy also created a very impressive air powered vehicle in the 70's using compressed air stored as a liquid. After a great deal of initial interest from Italian sources his invention is now all but forgotten.

Robert Alexander - from Montebello, Ca. spent 45 days and around $500 to put together a car (US PAT #3913004) based on a small 7/8ths 12 v-motor that provided the initial power. Once going, a hydraulic and air system took over and recharged the small electric energy drain. The inventor and his partner were determined that the auto industry would not bury their "super power" system. To no avail.

Joseph P Troyan - designed an air powered flywheel that could propel an automobile for 2c a mile. Using a principle of "ratioamplification of motion" in a closed system, the Troyan motor (US PAT #040011) was easily attached to electric generators for pollution-free variable power systems.

David McClintock - created his free energy device known as the "McClintock Air Motor" (US PAT #2,982,26100) which is a cross between a diesel engine with three cylinders with a compression ratio of 27 to 1, and a rotary engine with solar and plenary gears. It burns no fuel, but becomes self-running by driving it's own air compressor.

Magnetic Energy

John W. Keeley - developed a car in the 1920's using principles similar to Nikola Tesla's, drawing harmonic magnetic energies from the planet itself. The electric car ran from high frequency electricity that was received when he simply broadcast the re-radiated atmospheric energy from a unit on his house roof. GM and the other Detroit oil "powers" offered the inventor 35 million dollars which was turned down when they would not guarantee to market the engine. Henry Ford - later bought and successfully shelved the invention.

Harold Adams - of Lake Isabella, California, worked out a motor thought to be similar to Keeley's. It was demonstrated for many persons, including Naval scientists around the late 1940's before it to "disappeared" from our history.

Dr Keith E. Kenyon - of Van Nuys, California discovered a discrepancy in long accepted laws relating to electric motor magnets, and so built a radically different motor that could theoretically run a car on a very small amount of electrical current. When demonstrated to physicists and engineers in 1976 those present admitted that it worked remarkably well but because it was beyond the 'accepted' laws of physics they chose to ignore it.

Bob Teal - of Madison, Florida was a retired electronics engineer when he invented his Magna-Pulsion Engine which ran by means of six tiny electromagnets and a secret timing device. Requiring no fuel, the engine emitted no gases. It was so simple in design it required very little maintenance and a small motorcycle battery was enough power to get it started. The engine has been met with little else but skepticism.

Lester J. Hendershot - built his Hendershot Generator in the late 1920's largely through trial and error. He wove together a number of flat coils of wire and placed stainless steel rings, sticks of carbon and permanent magnets in various positions as an experiment. To his surprise it actually produced current. The generator raised considerable attention at the time.

Howard Johnson - developed a motor that's power is generated purely bymagnetism. It took six years of legal hassles to patent his design (US PAT #4,151,431) - more information is available from the "Permanent Magnet Research Institute" P.O. Box 199, Blacksburg, Virginia 24063. He is currently offering licensing rights.

Edwin V. Gray - developed in the early seventies an engine that uses no fuel and produces no waste, The engine that runs itself is U.S. Pat #3,890,548.

Petroleum Additives

Guido Franch - from Michigan U.S.A. began demonstrating in the mid seventies his "water-to-gas miracle" a fuel he created by adding to water a small quantity of "conversion powder" which was easily processed from coal. He claimed it could be processed for a few cents per gallon if mass produced. The fuel was tested by Chemists at Havoline Chemical of Michigan and the local University, and both concluded it worked more efficiently than gasoline. Franch continued to put on demonstrations for years but said the auto manufacturers, Government, and private companies just weren't interested in his revolutionary fuel.

Dr Alfred R. Globus - working for United International Research developed a Hydro-fuel mixture around the mid-seventies. The fuel was a mixture of 45% gasoline, 50% or more of water, and small percentages of United's "Hydrelate" which acted as a bonding agent. It was estimated that a hundred million gallons of fuel could be saved per day if this fuel were utilized but alas nobody seemed interested.

John Andrews - a Portuguese chemist who in 1974 developed a fuel additive that enabled ordinary gasoline to be mixed with water reducing fuel costs down to 2c a gallon. After successfully demonstrating the substance, impressed Navy officials when going to negotiate for the formula found the inventor missing and his lab ransacked.

Water and Alcohol Motor - Jean Chambrin, an engineer in Paris ran his private cars on a mixture of denatured alcohol and water. The inventor / mechanical engineer claimed his motor design could be mass produced at a fraction of the cost of present engines. He received nothing but publicity that led him to take great precautions in regard to his personnel security.

Mavrin D. Martin - from the University of Arizona developed in 1977 a "fuel reformer" catalytic reactor that was estimated to double mileage. The device was designed to cut exhaust emissions by mixing water with Hydro-carbon fuels to produce an efficient Hydrogen, Methane, Carbon-Monoxide fuel.

Improving Fuel Efficiency

Edward La Force - from Vermont U.S.A. designed with his brother Robert, a highly efficient engine that burnt all the usually wasted heavier gasoline molecules. The 'Los Angeles Examiner' (Dec. 29, 1974) reported that the cams, timing and so on were altered on stock Detroit engines. These modifications not only eliminated most of the pollution from the motor but by completely burning all the fuel, the mileage was usually doubled. After much publicity the US EPA examined the cars and found the motor designs were not good enough. Few people believed the EPA including a number of Senators who brought up the matter in a Congressional hearing in March 1975. The result was still silence.

Eric Cottell - was one of the pioneers of ultrasonic fuel systems. This involved using sonic transducers to 'vibrate' existing fuels down to much smaller particles, making it burn up to 20% more efficiently. Cottell then went on to discover that super fine S-ionized water could be mixed perfectly with up to 70% oil or gas in these systems, this was followed by much publicity (e.g. Newsweek, June 17,1974) and then, once again - silence.

L. Mills. Beam - had his super-mileage carburetor bought out in the 1920's. In the late 60's he worked out a catalytic vegetable compound that produced the same super mileage results. In principle it was nothing more than a method of using the hot exhaust gases of an engine to vaporize the liquid gas being burned. By rearranging the molecules of gas and diesel, he was able to triple mileage rates, while obtaining better combustion, mileage and emission control. He was refused and rejected by U.S. State and Federal Air Pollution and Environmental Pollution agencies and was finally forced to sell his formula abroad in the mid-seventies just to survive.

John W. Gulley - of Gratz Kentucky managed 115 mpg from his 8 cylinder Buick using a similar vaporizing method as that employed by L.M. Beam. "Detroit interests" bought and suppressed the device in 1950.

SHELL research of London - produced a 'Vapipe' unit in the early seventies that also vapourised the petroleum at around 40 degrees centigrade, and used a sophisticated pressure loss reduction system, but alas was not marketed because it did not meet Federal emission standards.

Russell Bourke - designed an engine in 1932 with only two moving parts. He connected two pistons to a refined "Scotch Yoke" crankshaft and came up with an engine that was superior in most respects to any competitive engine. His design burned any cheap carbon based fuel and delivered great mileage and performance. Article after article was published acclaiming his engine but once again, to no avail. "The Bourke Engine Documentary" is the revealing book the inventor assembled just before his death.

New Fuels

Clayton J. Querles - from Lucerne Valley, California took a 10,000 mile trip across the country in his 1949 Buick on $10 worth of carbide by building a simple carbide generator which worked on the order of a miners lamp. He claimed that half a pound of acetylene pressure was sufficient to keep his car running, but because acetylene was dangerous, he put a safety valve on his generator and ran the outlet gas through water to ensure there would be no 'blow back'. The inventor also toyed successfully with methods of fuel vaporization. (see Sun-Telegram 11/2/74.)

Joseph Papp - built the highly regarded Papp engine in the 60's that could run on a 15 cents an hour secret combination of expandable gases. Instead of burning fuel, this engine used electricity to expand the gas in hermetically sealed cylinders. The first prototype was a simple ninety horsepower Volvo engine with upper end modifications. Attaching the Volvo pistons to pistons fitting the sealed cylinders, the engine worked perfectly with an output of three hundred horsepower. The inventor claimed it would cost about twenty- five dollars to charge each cylinder every sixty thousand miles. The idea has gotten nowhere amid accusations of suppression by the media.

Carburetors

G.A. Moore. - one of the most productive inventors of carburetors, he held some 17,000 patents of which 250 were related to the automobile and it's carburetion. Industry today relies on his air brakes and fuel injection systems, it continues to completely ignore his systems for reducing pollution, gaining more mileage and improving overall engine efficiency. More info from "The Works of George Arlington Moore" published by the Madison Company. (See US PAT #'s 1,633,791 to 2,123,485 for 17 interesting developments.)

Joseph Bascle - created the Bascle carburetor in the mid 50's. The carburetor raised mileage by 25% and reduced pollution by 45%. It's inventor, a well known Baton Rouge researcher re-modified every carburetor in the local Yellow Cab fleet, shortly after his arrival there.

Kendig Carburetors - were originally hand made for racing cars by a small group of mechanics in Los Angeles in the early seventies under the title of Variable Venture Carburetors. Eventually a young college student bought one of their less sophisticated prototypes for his old Mercury "gas hog", when he entered it in a Californian air pollution run - he won easily - not only did the carburetor reduce pollution, it gave almost twice the mileage. Within a week the student was told to remove the carburetor as it was not approved by the Air Resources Board. The simpler Kendig model was due for production in 1975 but has yet to be produced.

C.N. Pogue - from Winnipeg, Canada, developed a carburetor (US PAT# 2,026,789) in the late 1930's that used superheated steam in it's system and managed at least 200 miles per gallon. Much local interest, including threats from professional thieves, was not enough publicity to see this invention through to the market place.

John R. Fish - developed his "Fish" carburetor in the early 1940's that was tested by Ford who admitted that the invention was a third more efficient than theirs. The design can also be easily switched to alcohol. Nevertheless the inventor was hindered from manufacture and distribution in almost every possible way, he once even resorted to selling by mail order, only to be stopped by the Post Office. The device can be currently bought from "Fuel systems of America" Box 9333, Tacoma, Washington 98401 - U.S. h: (206) 922-2228. (US PAT's 2,214,273 and 2,236,595 and 2,775,818.)

The Dresserator - was created around the early 70's in Santa Ana, California by Lester Berriman. It was based on a super-accurate mixture control using greatly enhanced airflow, and could run a car on up to a 22-to-1 fuel mixture. Test cars passed the pollution control standards with ease and managed up to an 18% mileage gain. Although Holley Carburetor and Ford signed agreements to manufacture the design in 1974, nothing has been heard of since.

posted 03-10-2004 01:27 PM            

Swampgas:

"The Old "Black and White" Heh Lexie?
Conspiracy or Coinicidence?

According to Lexie, the entire universe is a bunch of Coincidences, and governments and Corporations NEVER conspire.
http://www.mandalavillage.org/reading/tec_enertech_suppression.htm

How the government (FDA) conspired with Monsanto to ban Stevia, to allow the poison Nutrasweet to market.
http://www.holisticmed.com/sweet/stv-alert.txt

How the FDA and pharmaceuticals conspired to bring back a VERY dangerous drug, AZT, to kill off AIDS patients. In fact, AIDS is one of the bigeest scams in history.
http://www.duesberg.com/media/jlbazt.html
http://www.laleva.cc/supplements/pharmaceutical_racket.html

Need more proof the governemnt and corposrations CONSPIRE to make money at the expense of safety?"

posted 03-10-2004 01:43 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by KNOW-THIS:
JBE, I think that was the link that Swampgas posted on the previous page. I find it to be pretty revealing!

---

Ha! You are quite right. Sorry Swamp!! Talk about like minds! I haven't had a chance to read everything I bookmarked from yesterday!

posted 03-10-2004 01:56 PM            

You could also apply the inverse, How much techology is not allowed to reach the public. The one thing TPTB don't want anymore, is the "2 people in a garage" syndrome, individuals and small groups coming up with brilliant ideas. It's right across the board, in Art and Science both. Any coincidence on why the 5 major record companies own 90% of distribution. In Los Angeles, the big studios are working on a law to prevent small recording studios to be within a mile from their buildings. This is the same as the Little Guy prevented from getting a great idea to the public. Watch the movie "Chain Reaction" to see this in action, though fictitious? Maybe not!

posted 03-10-2004 03:38 PM            

quote:

---

Mojoman: What are your credintial to prove he is a quack or that his science is not good? NONE, therfore you are expressing opinion. Asking people to PROVE to YOU that he is not a quack?

---

Proving he is not a quack simply requires that someone proves he is right. No-one has done that, not even Bearden. The process is simple: Bearden simply has to present his findings and/or theory to physicists who will then reproduce it independently in order to verify his claims. Bearden has not done this and physicists who have taken the initiative to analyze the claims he has posted to the Internet have rejected his work categorically on many levels--some based on in-depth analysis and others simply noting that the units he uses in an equation don't produce units that would be produced as a result which calls into question the entire equation and theory. The only conclusion is that Bearden's theory doesn't work and thaat he is a quack by virtue of selling useless material (books, DVDs, etc.) to gullible Internet buyers.

posted 03-10-2004 06:15 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by letxa2000:
JBE had voiced a lot of concern about my characterizing Bearden as a quack. I was pretty sure she'd at least provide some evidence that his physics-violating theories had been reproduced independently or that physicists had validated some important part of his theory. Apparently that's not the case and JBE demonstrates that she is more capable of saying "OMG" than providing any reason why an educated person should believe that Bearden's claims are valid.

---

LOL! There - is that any better than OMG? Nice try! You can bait me ALL you want! It's useless and will only go in one ear and out the other. Sheesh - that description sounds just like you! LOL!

posted 03-10-2004 06:57 PM            

quote:

---

I am not obligated in any way, shape, or form to provide you with information that will only be deemed useless and NOT processed by your closed mind! Do you understand? I am NOT debating you, not now, not any time – not unless I feel like it.

---

posted 03-10-2004 07:37 PM            

You are a bonified pain in the dupa, and why don't you go away?

Nothing has been learned by you being here, that we couldn't read in the New York Post or see on the FreeRepublic Website.

posted 03-11-2004 07:47 AM               

quote:

---

Proving he is not a quack simply requires that someone proves he is right.

---

There is no logic in that statement. YOU labeled him a quack and have no knowledgeable scientific background to understand if his science is pure or not. The burden is on YOU to prove he is a quack. And you my dear friend, do not have the credentials. It is very underhanded to label a man a quack just because you and a select few dont agree with him. I have not seen you provide proof that he is a quack or shown any relative scientist that discredit him and why.

We have well respected scientist who agree to disagree on global warming and a vast amount of other issues.

posted 03-11-2004 11:06 AM            

quote:

---

YOU labeled him a quack and have no knowledgeable scientific background to understand if his science is pure or not. The burden is on YOU to prove he is a quack.

---

You consistently have the problem backwards. For example, you make a far-out theory on radars, it isn't proven, then you ask me to prove you are wrong. Bearden makes far-out energy theories, it isn't proven, physicists reject it, and then you ask me to prove he is wrong. That's not how it works in the real world. You make a claim about radars, you have to prove it. Bearden makes a claim about free energy, he has to prove it. Uttering silly theories and then assuming they're right until someone proves otherwise (and then you call them a disinformant) is absurd.

Besides, the physicsts already have disproven Bearden! There is no reason for me to do it again, especially when people with more physics knowledge than you or me already have done it.

quote:

---

It is very underhanded to label a man a quack just because you and a select few dont agree with him. I have not seen you provide proof that he is a quack or shown any relative scientist that discredit him and why.

---

Google will find the answer for you, but here is a collection of people discussing problems with Bearden's theories. It's not just a select few, it's the fact that those physicists that have reviewed it have rejected it and, as far as I know, no serious independent physicist has validated Bearden's theory.

quote:

---

We have well respected scientist who agree to disagree on global warming and a vast amount of other issues.

---

We're not talking about global warming, we're talking about fictional MEG free-energy devices proprosed by Bearden and on which he sells books and videos.

posted 03-11-2004 11:42 AM               

quote:

---

You consistently have the problem backwards. For example, you make a far-out theory on radars, it isn't proven, then you ask me to prove you are wrong

---

I didnt ask you to do squat. YOU made the assumption I was wrong.

Is one page of people talking about Bearden's patent all the proof you have? Why don't you accept Bearden's own words and science over a email posting ceremony that provides nothing more than views and little science? how do we not know THOSE people are quacks? What is the standard for being a quack? When someone disagrees with you? Who is the deciding quack factor? What are your credintials for accepting either side that allows you to judge the quack factor? Are you saying that just because some people dislike or do not agree with Bearden that it merits you accepting them over the actuall person with the patents and scientific background? Especially when YOU have no way of deciphering the science or truth. Have you investigated those who discredit Bearden?

You're nothing more than a jury member and not a judge Lex. And I doubt you would even be a leader in a jury pool.

Lex, you gotta stop acting like your GOD. Just because YOu label something other than what you believe does not make it their reponsibility to prove you wrong or them right. It makes it your responsibility to accept or not and then move on. Your whole area of expertise is nothing but to CLAIM and LABEL therefore until someone proves YOU wrong...your words are the gospel.

Your ego is huge my friend! Your intervention is not devine, it is childish.