Dear Barbara,

 

Dr. Evans is a theoretician of first rank, with over 600 papers in the literature, and a cofounder of O(3) electrodynamics, which is a higher symmetry electrodynamics.  It is also a subset (as shown by Dr. Evans) of Mendel Sachs' unified field theory.  Sachs' theory applies to the universe from the smallest particle (e.g., gluons) to the entire universe itself, and is an extension of Einstein's theory of general relativity, but includes electrodynamics and also the dynamics of quantum mechanics as well.    O(3) electrodynamics can be used to design and build systems that perform functions much expanded from present EM systems.  So one can use the new expanded model to perform engineering; the only problem is that most calculations must be done numerically because one is operating in areas where there are no closed solutions.  However, that is not a major problem today, with modern computers and tools such as Mathematica, etc.  Modern young physicists have little problem in handling numerical methods, because they just set up the problem and the machine does the calculations without error.

 

Since the O(3) electrodynamics is a subset of Sachs' theory, and since O(3) can be used to do engineering things, design functioning systems of unique kind, etc., it means that for the first time many "general relativity" functions can be performed in functioning electrodynamics systems, developed in accord with the new model.  However, science usually responds very slowly to such a new breakthrough, often taking 50 years before they really get with the program, so to speak.  25 years is a very fast response time for the staid and conservative scientific community.  So the stage right now is mostly working out much of the theory, and getting it published and before the scientists.  That is being done at a goodly pace.

 

The future vista is breathtaking, but we are speaking of a technology that is just now trying to get itself born, and which has essentially no funding at all from the scientific community's normal channels.  So the technology is not developed yet, and to speak of "systems available" off the shelf is premature.  Nonetheless, it means that, once the scientific community gets started with releasing research funds, turning the sharp young graduate students at the universities loose, etc., lots of things -- antigravity, e.g., and electrical energy directly from the vacuum -- that we have not developed, now can probably be done and developed into working technology.  We have already found, we believe, a remarkable application in the way the body heals itself.  It actually "time-reverses" the damaged or diseased cells back to a previous physical condition, before the damage or disease, slowly.  It appears that the cellular regeneration system of the body -- studied mostly by Becker and only sporadically by present researchers -- uses the new O(3) theory.  If O(3) is used to extend Becker's work and Priore's work, it will mean an incredible revolution in medical therapy and healing science.  At least the regenerative functions and system can be described in that model, and they cannot be described at all in ordinary U(1) EM theory, though Becker tried mightily to capture it there.  But the EM model available to him failed him.

 

Anyway, that is the gist of it.  Our own experimental energy device, the motionless electromagnetic generator, can be explained by O(3) electrodynamics, and in fact there is a very strong paper on that which is to be published in the Feb. 2001 issue of Foundations of Physics Letters (should be out of the presses now).  The device requires quite a bit of further research and development before we can start manufacturing systems for manufacture.

 

We are only one of several groups with a successful experimental device that uses energy from the vacuum.  The problem is that the present electrodynamics, once the Maxwell-Heaviside equations were further curtailed by Lorentz's symmetrical regauging in the 1880s, provides a model which is in equilibrium with the vacuum.  As long as our power systems are built strictly in accord with that emasculated model, they will never produce COP>1.0, even though every system we ever built and do build, was and is powered by EM energy taken directly from the vacuum.  Sadly, even though particle physicists have known for a half century that the source dipole is a broken symmetry in the vacuum flux, and therefore actually extracts and outputs usable EM energy from the vacuum, the interaction between the vacuum and the system is not even included in the 137-year-old crippled EM model taught in all our universities and used by all our electrical engineers to design and build the electrical power systems.

 

So we do not really have an energy crisis; instead, we have a scientific mindset crisis.  And that is the worst kind, because scientists change their prevailing paradigm only very, very slowly.  As Max Planck (then the leading scientist of his day) put it,

"An important scientific innovation rarely makes its way by gradually winning over and converting its opponents: it rarely happens that Saul becomes Paul. What does happen is that its opponents gradually die out, and that the growing generation is familiarized with the ideas from the beginning." [Max Planck, in G. Holton, Thematic Origins of Scientific Thought, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1973.]  There has been no change to the situation represented by Planck's succinct observation.

Hope this answers your question, and thanks for your interest in Dr. Evans' work and in our work.

 

Yours truly,

 

Tom Bearden, Ph.D.