Dear David,

 Glad you pointed that out, and yes, the intention recommended is iron doped into aluminum wire.  You are quite correct about the inconsistency, and you are also correct in concluding that the recommendation is for alloy wire made of 2% iron doped into aluminum.

 In spite of best intentions, sometimes such unwitting errors do creep in, and get through the review, and I appreciate it being pointed out so it can be corrected.

 Just shows that all my pencils still need erasers, and always will!

 Best wishes,

 Tom Bearden

---

Subject: Inconsistencies (?) in "xxxprinciples_of_overunity" and figures...
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 13:54:07

Webmaster - if that is not T. Bearden, please see that the information reaches him - I've searched the Cheniere website a little bit and was unable to find a more direct email address than this.

In the paper "On the Principles of Permissible Overunity EM Power Systems " in the paragraph beginning 'So we have a "usable 412-volt potential".  ... where instead of copper conductors we are using conductors made of copper doped with 2% pure iron, as a special alloy...', reference is made to the alloy being "copper doped with 2% pure iron".  The accompanying figure 23, however, makes two references to Fe-doped Al wire, and one reference to Fe-doped copper conductors.  Since notes on jnaudin's site about MEG also refer to Fe-doped aluminum conductors, I'm assuming that is what is actually being referred to, but didn't know if you may wish to correct the one reference in the paper, and one in the figure to match, or, if copper is the correct actual item, to correct the two references in the figure.

I'd also appreciate a brief reply just to indicate that this has reached an appropriate person to apply or pass on the info, or to indicate I need to find a different destination address.

Thanks,
David