Table of Contents

Dear Mr. Kolber -

Thank you for your understanding. We too have our minimum conditions for the testing and commercialization of our technologies, and all three types of ventures we presently contemplate carry these. Further, you will also realize that we shy away from any association with political and religious agendas, and just as well from all the nonsense regarding abductions by extraterrestrials and so on. However, since Dr. Greer is an associate of Dr. Mallove - we suggest that he take the matter up directly with Dr. Mallove and Mr. Uri Soudak, who together have our entire confidence and are now in charge of commercializing our various technologies.

Best Regards,

Paulo Correa, MSC, PhD
Alexandra Correa, HBA

on 1/12/02 09:55 pm, Info@DisclosureProject at info@disclosureproject.org wrote:

Drs. Correa,

Dr. Eugene Mallove, an associate of Dr. Greer, holds your work in high esteem. I have read your sad account of difficulties encountered in taking a rational, conventional business approach to commercialization. Please consider another way.

Dr. Greer is CEO and founder of Space Energy Access Systems, Inc. He has hired me to help him identify, test, license and commercialize an over unity energy device. In his view, and based upon his wealth of extraordinary contacts, Dr. Greer is convinced that the problems in bringing such a device to market are not so much technological as political (using the word in its broadest sense).

Dr. Greer has been researching the problems associated with commercializing over unity technology for years. He is aware of the traps and pitfalls, usually unrelated to technology, which have felled dozens of startups. He has an outstanding network of world class contacts and associates ready to assist with all matters including R&D, management, funding, politics and security. He has access to literally anyone of importance in the world, either directly or through his contacts.

Over [?] million people witnessed the webcast of Dr. Greer's Disclosure Project event held May 9, 2001 at the National Press Club. Based on subsequent international media coverage, we estimate that hundreds of millions of people worldwide have heard of the Disclosure Project. This and his other media appearances have given Dr. Greer the ability to reach millions to build support for this new technology. Visit www.disclosureproject.org for details.

In Dr. Greer's view, only a public figure capable of withstanding the most severe personal challenges and able to quickly rally massive public support can survive the obstacles that will be thrown up against an effort to bring over unity into widespread public use, which threatens a multi-trillion dollar establishment. Dr. Greer has been among the most popular guests on radio and television programs including the Larry King Show, and others. Perhaps most importantly, certain control interests who now regard planned disclosure as the sane course are quietly supporting Dr. Greer.

My background is business planning and startups. I have an MBA in finance and have written high-tech business plans that have attracted millions of dollars in venture capital. Dr. Greer has already attracted significant offers of seed capital. Once we have successfully triple-tested an over unity device, professional money managers have indicated interest in investing seven to eight figures. Once closed, those funds will be used to take our triple-vetted prototype to commercial readiness. We will then structure a multi-billion dollar capitalization to bring this to market.

We are developing a business plan to make cooperation with our effort more attractive than opposing it. We are addressing not only the traditional startup factors, but also the political and social realities of transition to a new society. Unlike most corporations, our primary purpose will be dissemination of this technology and the benefits it brings, with profit secondary. This plan will be a working document, and evolve to guide our efforts.

The device must produce a reliable net gain of wattage in controlled laboratory conditions. We have four eminent university and federal laboratories ready to conduct tests.

Unfortunately, we currently lack the resources to explore theories and partially developed technologies. We are hopeful that you may know of a functioning over unity device. We seek such a device ready for testing. We will gladly execute reasonable confidentiality (aka NDA) agreements, and are willing to license the device so that, if we fail to bring it to market within a few years, all rights revert to the inventor. We offer this because we are committed to disclosure of this technology.

Thanks in advance for your consideration. Please feel free to forward this letter as you see fit.

Cordially,

Jonathan Kolber

Vice President, Planning and Product Development
Space Energy Access Systems, Inc.

Subject: FW: Press Release - Z Prize Announced!
Date: Tue, 01 Oct 2002 21:28:14 -0700
From: Eugene F. Mallove
To: Paulo and Alexandra Correa

Back in NH now.

FYI- Greer's "Z-Prize"

- Gene

****

This email is being sent to the Disclosure Project Updates email list, and is intended only for those who have signed up for the list. If you wish to be removed, please reply to this email with REMOVE in the subject. For more information, please visit the Disclosure Project web site at:

www.disclosureproject.org and the SEAS web site: www.seaspower.com

PRESS RELEASE - September 30, 2002

COMPANY ANNOUNCES $1 MILLION ENERGY PRIZE

Apply at http://www.SeasPower.com/zprizeannounced.htm

Space Energy Access Systems, Inc. (SEAS) has announced the one million dollar "Z Prize" for an energy invention that would dramatically decrease the need for fossil fuels.

The Charlottesville, VA based energy company will provide the $1 million prize to the inventor or inventors who provide a testable prototype of an invention that can serve to either replace current internal combustion energy systems or greatly increase their efficiency. The Z Prize is named after the so-called zero point energy field that many physicists claim is a vast field of energy that can be tapped from the space around an object.

Specifically, the company is looking for new energy systems that could allow each home or business to have its own energy generation capability without the use of fossil fuels and a system for greatly increasing the fuel efficiency of motor vehicles. The winning invention must be reproducible, economically viable and suitable to widespread acceptance.

Steven M. Greer MD, the CEO of SEAS. states that: "We know such breakthroughs in energy generation have occurred in the past, only to be suppressed by a number of questionable means. This time, we are committed to identifying and bringing to the public the most advanced systems to replace our addiction to oil and fossil fuels."

SEAS has a Technical Advisory Board comprised of prominent scientists and engineers.

Inventors may visit the SEAS Inc. website at: http://www.SeasPower.com/zprizeannounced.htm and complete an application. Submissions must be received by December 1, 2002 and the prize will be determined by December 31, 2002, unless the company determines that the contest needs to be extended.

NOTE: THIS PRESS RELEASE MAY BE FORWARDED TO ANY INTERESTED PARTY, OR POSTED AT ANY WEB SITE.

Subject: FW: Z prize
Date: Mon, 07 Oct 2002 08:38:59 -0700
From: Eugene F. Mallove
To: Paulo and Alexandra Correa

From one of Steve Greer's top associates right here in NH.

- Gene

------ Forwarded Message

From: Ted Loder
Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 07:10:30 EDT
To: Eugene Mallove
Cc: Steven Greer
Subject: Z prize

Gene:

Got your phone message just now. Am at meetings out of the office for the next 2 days. The one hour video of the Correa's (spell?) work sounds very interesting and I would like to see it. I'll call you later this week, probably on Weds. to move ahead on this.

Best regards,

Ted

------ End of Forwarded Message --------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Thoughts
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 13:37:24 -0700
From: Eugene F. Mallove
To: Paulo and Alexandra Correa, Uri Soudak

Dear Paulo, Alex, and Uri -- and Malgosia, of course,

Thank you for all your messages. I will respond separately to some of those needing addressing. Let me here make the most critical points:

This Friday morning -- tomorrow 10/11 -- I will be meeting here with Prof. Ted Loder (of the University of New Hampshire). He is the right hand man, so to speak, of Dr. Steve Greer of the Z-Prize outfit -- SEAS. I know him and Steve very well and they respect my opinion in matters of new energy. In my opinion, though I do not agree with everything in their cosmology, they are both of very high ethical character. In my phone conversation with Ted yesterday, I made the point that what you have is by far and away the most certain and best development in the entire new energy field -- as far as devices already existing that actually work. Ted and Steve knew that was my opinion anyway. The purpose of his 2-hour visit tomorrow is to get further indication of the basis for my conclusion by watching the Berlin video. Ted will then report to Steve Greer what he has observed/heard from me. Focus will be on the PAGD, since it is that level of development --something robust and more auspicious for the near term -- that I presume they are interested in for the Z-Prize. It actually seems to me that this Greer route has many advantages:

1. My idea: There may be the possibility for some up-front consulting money for A&P, with no strings attached -- simply because there is SOME money already in the bank at SEAS.

2. The parties that Steve already has in his pocket, who evidently trust him, may be able to come up with significant monies -- not only for the Z-prize per se -- but also for any other R&D monies for PAGD;

3. If PAGD was truly awarded the Z-Prize, it would be a great way -- a fast way -- within the new energy field to achieve much deserved prominence. Thus, all ZPE "noise" from the likes of Puthof et al would suffer an immediate put-down and the direction of Aetherometry would be anointed and enhanced. Note well, however, that point #3 is of least importance -- it is just a nice frosting on the cake. The main point is to GET PAGD funded and money in the hands of A&P ASAP!!!

Interesting side not on Ted Loder: (CONFIDENTIAL) He has a very low opinion of DeMeo, which he developed while at one of Demeo's retreats a few years ago. He has heard about the "war" between you and DeMeo, and seems to understand it --from my summary to him -- as what it is, DeMeo's ego getting in the way of appreciating Aetherometry. So, this leaves me with a good feeling: Loder was independently interested in exploring the work of Reich, and was perceptive enough to see the character of DeMeo a few years ago.
(...)
- Gene

Subject: Re: Thoughts
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2002 00:54:02 -0400
From: Paulo and Alexandra Correa
To: Eugene F. Mallove
CC: Uri Soudak

Dear Gene -

> This Friday morning -- tomorrow 10/11 -- I will be meeting here with Prof.
> Ted Loder (of the University of New Hampshire). He is the right hand man, so
> to speak, of Dr. Steve Greer of the Z-Prize outfit -- SEAS. I know him and
> Steve very well and they respect my opinion in matters of new energy.

What is Loder's specialty and background, do you know?

> In my opinion, though I do not agree with everything in their cosmology, they are
> both of very high ethical character. In my phone conversation with Ted
> yesterday, I made the point that what you have is by far and away the most
> certain and best development in the entire new energy field -- as far as
> devices already existing that actually work. Ted and Steve knew that was my
> opinion anyway. The purpose of his 2-hour visit tomorrow is to get further
> indication of the basis for my conclusion by watching the Berlin video.
> Ted will then report to Steve Greer what he has observed/heard from me.
> Focus will be on the PAGD, since it is that level of development --something
> robust and more auspicious for the near term -- that I presume they are
> interested in for the Z-Prize.

Is there a minimum energy output required for the Z prize?

> It actually seems to me that this Greer route has many advantages:
> 1. My idea: There may be the possibility for some up-front consulting money
> for A&P, with no strings attached -- simply because there is SOME money
> already in the bank at SEAS.
> 2. The parties that Steve already has in his pocket, who evidently trust
> him, may be able to come up with significant monies -- not only for the
> Z-prize per se -- but also for any other R&D monies for PAGD;
> 3. If PAGD was truly awarded the Z-Prize, it would be a great way -- a fast
> way -- within the new energy field to achieve much deserved prominence.
> Thus, all ZPE "noise" from the likes of Puthof et al would suffer an
> immediate put-down and the direction of Aetherometry would be anointed and
> enhanced. Note well, however, that point #3 is of least importance -- it is
> just a nice frosting on the cake. The main point is to GET PAGD funded and
> money in the hands of A&P ASAP!!!

Your idea #1 is excellent, but we are unclear: is the potential offer of consulting services for the testing of the PAGD, or for its development, or for something else or troth?

We are also unclear as to what happens if #3 comes about - does the awarding of the prize give SEAS any rights re. the technology (we would be presenting the converter system). And, of course, we concur entirely with your assessment in #2 and #3 - we do not doubt that SEAS could find the required capital, nor that this would be a blow to the likes of Puthof et al.
(...)
A long and affectionate hug to you and to Uri.

Alex & Paulo

Subject: Loder, Z-Prize, etc.
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2002 14:53:17 -0700
From: Eugene F. Mallove
To: Paulo and Alexandra Correa
CC: Uri Soudak

Dear Alex and Paulo,

Just a brief report on this morning's three- hour meeting that ended at 12:15. Will respond to your response to my earlier e-mail later.

It was a very good meeting with Ted Loder, who (to answer your question) is a full professor of oceanography at UNH. He is an expert on algal blooms and other biological issues connected with ocean currents. I am sure you can look up his papers. I believe the formal name of his department is Environmental Science --Something or other Dept. (not Oceanography).

I gave him a complete overview of your work and saw much of the tape in review so that he understands where the PAGD fits in to matters of the aether, where the aether motor fits in, etc..

He accepts my view on PAGD and agrees with me that what you have in PAGD and associated electronics may be among the very best candidates -- possibly THE best -- for winning the $1 million Z-prize. And, with your immediate and future interests in mind -- a situation I outlined for him -- we strategized about how best to orchestrate matters. Here is the scenario we propose:

1. Greer and I come to visit you perhaps sometime within the next month -- on a day before Nov. 15. Greer/SEAS would foot the bill for this. Loder might accompany us too. This initial meeting would be for the purpose of planning how you will win the Z- Prize -- negotiating the required steps. Loder and I both realize that apart from published stuff on the web site, the precise requirements of winning the prize and the methods of delivering the prize are negotiable. Loder understands that you would dearly like to have $1 million, no strings attached, to just go off and continue your magnificent research -- that indeed would be a PRIZE!

2. If the negotiations were successful, there would be another visit planned at which a small team of selected technical people would come to your lab to observe/measure and be tutored in all *protected* aspects of PAGD functioning. For this you would be paid a good consulting fee -- a respectable fee that would make it worthwhile for you to carry this tutorial out in the first place -- it would buy you some "breathing time." This group would write a validation report which they would make public/publish. There most likely would be people from NASA and/or the Naval Research Laboratory who would would participate in this, so you would thus have a rather significant public validation of the excess energy phenomenon and its associated understandings.

3. The next step comes only because one of the SEAS conditions for device evaluation -- and winning the Z-Prize -- is to have the device tested off site (for all the reasons having to do with public perception -- even if unreasonable perception -- of potential "inventor interference."). I told Ted that this would be a stumbling block for you. I told them that I did not think you would allow any of your equipment to go off site -- I am not sure how iron-clad that issue is for you, but I told him it would not be good to make this an essential point. IF anything did go off site, I told him that this would require a significant fee as well as your continued participation at the off-site evaluation to be sure that everything was being done properly -- AND, this would require more consulting money to you. Therefore, my recommendation, if the offsite issue is still a requirement, was for a PAGD replication - from scratch by the initial review team -- to be funded by SEAS. If further consulting with you was required during this phase, you would be paid for this. Upon the off site success with the validation, you would win the Z-Prize and the money would begin to flow to you, or in one lump sum. Obviously, the winning of the prize and the further off-site evaluation would be publicized as well.

4. The previously agreed-upon development plan (at Azure level) would then be initiated.

So, there it is, a possible opportunity, certainly not a fishing expedition by Greer et al. The initial meeting is to determine whether there is a basis of understanding for you to win the Z-Prize. Loder came to the conclusion that you would be the best candidate to win said prize because, unlike the numerous potentially bogus "black box" people who are bombarding SEAS (if they have anything at all, unlikely), you have integrated scientific measurements and a theoretical structure put together that surrounds all your technology. Greer is keenly aware already via his understandings and intuition, that the aether must have a biophysical character. Remember, he is a physician (emergency medicine specialty) who has long considered the implications of various complementary health care issues. You are on his and Ted's wavelength already.

In my view, this potential visit should be taken up. Ted will be speaking with Greer this weekend. The prospect of near term consulting money for you -- as well as the promise of winning the Z-Prize and all that would follow from it in the process I have outlined above, I hope will make you wish to take up this prospect. Please let me know your thoughts.

- Gene

Subject: Re: Loder, Z-Prize, etc.
Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2002 00:57:21 -0400
From: Paulo and Alexandra Correa
To: Eugene F. Mallove>

Dear Gene -

Here go our thoughts on this meeting that shows promise indeed. Excellent work, Gene -
(...)
We prefer to meet right after Nov. 15, and not before. (...)

> Greer/SEAS would foot the bill for this.

Good.

> Loder might accompany us too.

Fine.

> This initial meeting would be for the purpose of
> planning how you will win the Z-Prize -- negotiating the required steps.

Excellent - this is what we would have asked.

> Loder and I both realize that apart from published stuff on the web site,
> the precise requirements of winning the prize and the methods of delivering
> the prize are negotiable.

Excellent also.

> Loder understands that you would dearly like to
> have $1 million, no strings attached, to just go off and continue your
> magnificent research -- that indeed would be a PRIZE!

Quite.

> 2. If the negotiations were successful, there would be another visit
> planned at which a small team of selected technical people would come to
> your lab to observe/measure and be tutored in all *protected* aspects of
> PAGD functioning.

Good. And they should be required to do some basic reading we will allot, before any demonstration is given, so that they understand what it is they will be observing. We will also retain the power to veto any one we do not want here.

> For this you would be paid a good consulting fee -- a
> respectable fee that would make it worthwhile for you to carry this tutorial
> out in the first place -- it would buy you some "breathing time."

Good also.

> This group would write a validation report which they would make public/publish.
> There most likely would be people from NASA and/or the Naval Research
> Laboratory who would would participate in this, so you would thus have a
> rather significant public validation of the excess energy phenomenon and its
> associated understandings.

NASA and Navy Research - this, we do not like; one thing is to bring physicists with a certain name and ethical character, another is to bring State agents and bureaucrats. Valone tried that on us once - and you know what IT was: a stacked trap at the DOE/State with Parks and Zimmerman at the helm. We all know better than to fall into this trap. For us, it is like bringing in priests or psychiatrists. Greer will have to understand this - or the person be very special and we just cannot think of a single one, right now, in NASA or the Navy, that we would trust. So far, this is the only real block.

> 3. The next step comes only because one of the SEAS conditions for device
> evaluation -- and winning the Z-Prize -- is to have the device tested off
> site (for all the reasons having to do with public perception -- even if
> unreasonable perception -- of potential "inventor interference.").

We understand that, but does not withstand our overriding criteria - it would be tantamount to get for 1M what right now needs a significant portion of 16M to develop.

> I told Ted that this would be a stumbling block for you. I told them that I did not
> think you would allow any of your equipment to go off site -- I am not sure
> how iron-clad that issue is for you, but I told him it would not be good to
> make this an essential point.

That is correct.

> IF anything did go off site, I told him that
> this would require a significant fee as well as your continued participation
> at the off-site evaluation to be sure that everything was being done
> properly -- AND, this would require more consulting money to you.

The problem here is very simple - prize or no prize, no one is going to get something that will cost, some 16M to develop, already developed on a platter for 1M or anything less than what is needed. If Greer/SEAS wants a prototype-converter that can be tested by others, then he wants the transfer of a technology and its know-how; we would indeed hope that would be the case - that upon winning the prize there would be an offer to develop the system as per our Azure proposal or any negotiated version of the same. Already demonstration of the phenomenon at our lab will incurr significant imparting of that know-how. That is a risk which will have to be protected by our NDA.

> Therefore, my recommendation, if the offsite issue is still a requirement,
> was for a PAGD replication - from scratch by the initial review team -- to
> be funded by SEAS. If further consulting with you was required during this
> phase, you would be paid for this. Upon the off site success with the
> validation, you would win the Z-Prize and the money would begin to flow to
> you, or in one lump sum. Obviously, the winning of the prize and the
> further off-site evaluation would be publicized as well.

If this condition 3 is not made to comply to our need for funding in order to produce something robust enough that it can be tested offsite, where the interest to develop it is mutual, then this matter is an actual no-go.

> 4. The previously agreed-upon development plan (at Azure level) would then
> be initiated.

One cannot separate 3 from 4: they are the same thing. We have argued this over and over again. We need money to develop precisely the basic reliable prototype that can be carted from lab to lab.

> So, there it is, a possible opportunity, certainly not a fishing expedition
> by Greer et al.

It is a good possibility, but we are already seeing where it will hang.

> The initial meeting is to determine whether there is a basis
> of understanding for you to win the Z-Prize. Loder came to the conclusion
> that you would be the best candidate to win said prize because, unlike the
> numerous potentially bogus "black box" people who are bombarding SEAS (if
> they have anything at all, unlikely), you have integrated scientific
> measurements and a theoretical structure put together that surrounds all
> your technology.

Well, this is true - and lately we gained a unified understanding as to how the 'vacuum' contributes energy in the aPAGD regime. But the PAGD is something that stands on its own.

> Greer is keenly aware already via his understandings and
> intuition, that the aether must have a biophysical character. Remember, he
> is a physician (emergency medicine specialty) who has long considered the
> implications of various complementary health care issues. You are on his and
> Ted's wavelength already.

That, indeed, has the potential to be excellent.

> In my view, this potential visit should be taken up.

Within the parameters we have proposed, so that no outlandish promises are made, yes, most definitely it should be taken up.

> Ted will be speaking
> with Greer this weekend. The prospect of near term consulting money for you
> -- as well as the promise of winning the Z-Prize and all that would follow
> from it in the process I have outlined above, I hope will make you wish to
> take up this prospect. Please let me know your thoughts.

So, here they are. Now, we need yours and Uri's back!

Alex & Paulo

Subject: IMPORTANT! - FW: Nov. 16 Toronto meeting
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 08:13:36 -0800
From: Eugene F. Mallove
To: Paulo and Alexandra Correa

Dear Paulo and Alex,

Please confirm with me ASAP that it is OK for Loder and Greer to come on the 16th.

If so, I will stay over on the night of the 15th and be with you all that Saturday -- not sure whether I will leave that evening or not.

- Gene

------ Forwarded Message

From: Dr Steven Greer
Date: Sun, 27 Oct 2002 23:45:18 EST
To: Eugene F. Mallove
Subject: Nov. 16 Toronto meeting

The Nov. 16 time frame is good for Ted and me. Shall we proceed with travel plans or do you need to reconfirm with our friends there? Thanks again for your help, Steven

------ End of Forwarded Message

Subject: Various - 10/28/02
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 11:34:47 -0800
From: Eugene F. Mallove
To: Paulo and Alexandra Correa, Uri Soudak, Malgosia Askanas

Dear All,
(...)

Spoke to Ted Loder today. It appears that he and Greer will indeed come in for meetings on Saturday, Nov.16. They are eager to talk. But I am waiting for final confirmation that they will be there that day before making MY flight arrangements. I plan for sure to fly in via Air Canada on Friday morning -- arrives 9 am in Toronto. The only issue is when I depart -- Saturday a.m. IF Loder/Greer are not there, and maybe evening of Nov.16 if they are there.
(...)

- Gene

Subject: Re: IMPORTANT! - FW: Nov. 16 Toronto meeting
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 17:04:49 -0800
From: Eugene F. Mallove
To: Paulo and Alexandra Correa

Dear Alex and Paulo,

> Dear Gene -
>
> That's fine with us. But we wonder if you should not stay also Sunday just
> for recaps and a little visit with us.

I have just made flight arrangements with US Air (...).

Loder had called me just before, indicating he found that rate too (the lowest on Air Canada that I had earlier found had been $500+) -- so with the near certainty that he will be coming with Greer, I froze the itinerary and ordered my ticket.

Leave Manchester, Nov. 15 Fri, 7:15 a.m. arrive Toronto at 11 a.m.

Leave Toronto on Sunday Nov. 17th at 9:44 a.m., return to Manchester, 2:20 pm.

Loder says there is a Super-8 motel in Concord, ONT -- that would be fine for me instead of the probably more costly Sheraton. I assume you may know where it is. Please send me the Super-8 number if you can get it.
(...)

- Gene

Subject: FW: Toronto? -- from Greer
Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2002 14:18:22 -0800
From: Eugene F. Mallove
To: Paulo and Alexandra Correa

------ Forwarded Message

From: Dr. Steven Greer
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 11:23:03 EST
To: Eugene F. Mallove
Subject: Re: Toronto?

> Dear Ted and Steve,
>
> Have you made your arrangements? Do we have a firm plan with both of you to
> meet the Correas on November 16, Saturday in Toronto. I will be there.
>
> Best, Gene

Yes, we have our tickets and I will be ready to meet with the Correas on Saturday; Ted gets in that am of the 16th. We should discuss logistics of when/where to meet, transportation etc. Looking forward to it, Steven

------ End of Forwarded Message

Subject: Dr. LODER's Briefing to EPW Committee re energy crisis
Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2002 18:52:28 -0800 (PST)
From: pacenet@canada.com
To: List of recipients

------- Start of forwarded message -------

Subject: Dr. LODER's Briefing to EPW Committee
From: Hal Ade
Date: Sun, 03 Nov 2002 22:45:02 -0500

To those concerned for a clean energy future:

Dr. Ted Loder and colleagues has said it all on the current *real* energy crisis in the item below, I think. Whether we're interested in (legally) replacing our government with one that addresses the true energy needs of its people, or we'd just like to "get out from under" extortionate electricity rates increasingly (hopefully temporarily) dependent on non-renewable, increasingly expensive oil or natural gas, the tomes below should give us "meat" to goad the powers that be to facilitate pollution-free, low-cost, portable, and abundant (mostly electrical) energy availability for all.

Hal Ade
Ottawa West-Nepean.
-------------------------------------
http://mail.canada.com/jump/http://www.senate.gov/~epw/loder.htm

------- End of forwarded message -------

Subject: Re: Schmidt
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 19:16:28 -0800
From: Eugene F. Mallove
To: Paulo and Alexandra Correa

Dear Alex and Paulo,

> We have now read your letter - and it is excellent, just as is.

OK, I'll send it as is.

(...)
Looking forward to a most enjoyable and rewarding time with you all in Concord. Yes, my documents are OK -- confirmed with US Airways.

Loder will be at the Super-8 hotel too. Greer will be at the Westin hotel downtown.

Yes, and we will address all the matters you have discussed above. I have thought of some new resources.

Gene

Subject: Re: Glad you're back!
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 08:53:05 -0800
From: Eugene F. Mallove
To: Paulo and Alexandra Correa

Dear Alex and Paulo,

> Dear Gene,
>
> We got the fax - but haven't yet had a chance to read it. It was excellent
> to see it come in, for it let us know you had arrived.

I would very much like your opinion on the nature of Fred Mayer's/Reitz's work. Exciting, indeed, that there may be some interesting tie-in -- however remote -- with your ideas. I only wish I had had another day there to discuss the "new CF" matter with you! I have some ideas as to how to achieve funding for it. They are not fully formed as yet. The simplest way, of course, is to have a large chunk flow through NEF.

> We were quite
> worried about the type of trip you might be having.... How was it?

We left an hour late from Toronto as the plane was being de-iced -- in a lineup of 14 other planes. But we had ample time gap to make the Manchester flight from Pittsburgh.

> Did the
> plane take off on time? We very much wished we could have been flies on the
> wall as you and Ted had breakfast and made your way out to the airport. Any
> stories to report?

Nothing of great consequence. Ted humorously described the dynamic of the encounter between Paulo and Steve as that between two "alpha males" -- I could not disagree!

My main discussion with Ted concerned a comparison of your work with that of the entirety of the new energy field as I know it. I pointed out that, of course, if they found something more robust and at the same time lower up front cost, that I agreed they should go with that. However, I told him that I very much doubted that something like that existed ( in the "white world"). Therefore, I kept hammering home the notion that the PAGD was the way to go. I advocated redefining the terms of the Z-prize so that it would fit what you already have in the PAGD. I discussed methods of testing, concerns about tube lifetimes, etc. My impression is that we are in the driver's seat and that something good may potentially come out of this.

I bought up a bridging idea in connection with a redefined Z-Prize "win" by you: 1. PAGD is declared a winner, based on O/U testing, whose results are publicly reported, of course; 2. A "option" amount of say $200,000 is given to you as part of the Z-prize which allows you to *try* to take the existing inverter/flyweel configuration with the low power tube and make it close the loop to eliminate the battery -- the point being that at a certain time thereafter, say 1 year, if you had achieved that, this would trigger negotiations on the $15 million matter which they would legally have the first right of refusal to pick up your best offer. This kind of deal, of course, is well known in such mundane areas as books and movie rights. This would accomplish two things: 1. Help you out financially and PR-wise, with no long term commitment other than good faith attempt to close the loop on the inverter/PAGD -- this mysterious psychological milestone that is the holy grail of the new energy field. I do agree with Greer that this overcomes that last remaining perceptual barrier to potential large investors. But I also defended, of course, the existence of the converter PAGD performance now as meriting a Z-prize win.

The trip was a very big accomplishment -- new directions for Aethera; two potential investment parties, both of whom are now very serious about PAGD; and the potential to work on "new CF" together.

(...)
> It was simply excellent to see you again and we miss you already.

Indeed, my feelings too.

> Big hugs from all of us -
>
> Alex & Paulo

And a Big, Big hug from me.

- Gene

Subject: Re: Glad you're back!
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 18:58:58 -0500
From: Paulo and Alexandra Correa
To: Eugene F. Mallove
CC: Uri Soudak, Malgosia Askanas

Dear Gene -

"Eugene F. Mallove" wrote:

> Dear Alex and Paulo,
>
> > Dear Gene,
> >
> > We got the fax - but haven't yet had a chance to read it. It was excellent
> > to see it come in, for it let us know you had arrived.
>
> I would very much like your opinion on the nature of Fred Mayer's/Reitz's
> work. Exciting, indeed, that there may be some interesting tie-in --
> however remote -- with your ideas. I only wish I had had another day there
> to discuss the "new CF" matter with you! I have some ideas as to how to
> achieve funding for it. They are not fully formed as yet. The simplest way,
> of course, is to have a large chunk flow through NEF.

It will not be before we can find some time to read all the CF papers you have sent us that we will be in a position to give you some idea of our thoughts on the Mayer/Reitz' papers. Also keep in mind that the cost Paulo quoted you re this work did not include any form of personal compensation, and without that we cannot survive. But we will cross that bridge when and if we get there.

> >We very much wished we could have been flies on the
> > wall as you and Ted had breakfast and made your way out to the airport. Any
> > stories to report?
>
> Nothing of great consequence. Ted humorously described the dynamic of the
> encounter between Paulo and Steve as that between two "alpha males" -- I
> could not disagree!

Well we do disagree - for between alpha or beta or theta or delta males or females, there was far more to it than just that - and in fact, be it through the 'psychiatric' or the 'military' arm, we are all rather suspicious of Greer, his motivation and those behind him. And, more importantly, there are the very serious issues of the conditions and their backdrops on both sides.

> My main discussion with Ted concerned a comparison of your work with that of
> the entirety of the new energy field as I know it. I pointed out that, of
> course, if they found something more robust and at the same time lower up
> front cost, that I agreed they should go with that.

Do they have a pinnable timetable for this evaluation?

> However, I told him that
> I very much doubted that something like that existed ( in the "white world").

...nor in the 'black' one either - which is why the 'military' interpretation we suggested appears more and more as the correct one. They may cite all the Bob Lazar types they wish - but unless and until we see any actual _scientific_ evidence - not just conspiratorial hearsay - that would give us any indication whatsoever that these things are 'already known' - it has as much value to us as a broke mafioso diamond dealer telling us they'll take our diamond off our hands for a pittance and as a 'favour' because it's really only glass and in their back rooms they have much bigger and better ones... No. We don't buy this. Not for one second. As scientists, we have absolutely no reason to.

> Therefore, I kept hammering home the notion that the PAGD was the
> way to go. I advocated redefining the terms of the Z-prize so that it would
> fit what you already have in the PAGD. I discussed methods of testing,
> concerns about tube lifetimes, etc. My impression is that we are in the
> driver's seat and that something good may potentially come out of this.

We do not share this view, Gene. And if anything comes our way, it will have to meet the conditions that Paulo put on the table. We saw no indication that Greer has any interest in not driving his operation exactly according to whatever is his preconceived plan.

> I bought up a bridging idea in connection with a redefined Z-Prize "win" by
> you: 1. PAGD is declared a winner, based on O/U testing, whose results are
> publicly reported, of course;

Does this mean that: Testing of the PAGD converter at our premises as per the patent and with their complete payment for all labour, material and consultancy is carried out and the claims verified: PAGD is declared the winner. We receive $1M. -?

> 2. A "option" amount of say $200,000 is given to you as part of the Z-prize

What does this mean? That $200K are given to us on top of the $1M to secure an option on closing the loop on the inverter for 1 year?

> which allows you to *try* to take the existing
> inverter/flyweel configuration with the low power tube and make it close the
> loop to eliminate the battery -- the point being that at a certain time
> thereafter, say 1 year, if you had achieved that, this would trigger
> negotiations on the $15 million matter which they would legally have the
> first right of refusal to pick up your best offer.

What really bothers us about this bridge scheme is that, once again, it wants us to deliver something we do not have and makes the investment in Azure be dependent - not upon testing the hard working horse - the converter system as is - but something else: the closed-loop inverter, and in 1 year, no less, for $200K (on top of the $1M?).

And after that? This would go to a demo that others would have access to and that would be time zero for the $15M?

Here is our counterproposal - and we would like to hear from Uri on it: after we would supposedly win step 1 as we described just above, and get the $1M prize, this kicks in a previously written agreement (at time absolute zero) which commits SEAS to finance the entirety of the Azure project ($15-16M) in order to obtain a license to explore three products, as discussed - the reactor, the converter and hopefully (!) the inverter. The first milestones will be both the development of a rugged reactor that can be sealed and remain 'tuned' for demonstration purposes, as per submitted Azure plan, and the development of a small demo-prototype of a 1 kW converter that will be tested by mutually agreable civil laboratories and presented at other demos. This should be given the timetable of 1.5 years, and require $7-8M. Once these two milestones are crossed, then the development of 10 kW converter _and inverter_ systems could be considered, for another 1.5 -2.0 years, with a second investment of $11-8M. Then we would at least have transferred the know-how after the first leg of the journey had given us an advantage over the invariable busting of our interests which others will undoubtedly carry out (yes, keep the 'military' interpretation close in mind).
(...)
In fact, these matters tie in to why it is that the Z-prize announcement site reads:

"Here are some examples of devices that will not be considered: (...) Produces torque (turning force) output less than 10 times greater than the input energy (The reason is that, although textbooks would lead one to believe that torque converts to electrical wattage through a simple formula, in fact the calculation may be inaccurate by an order of magnitude)."

We simply detest being forced to unveil things ahead of our own schedules and to run unnecessary risks when so much knowledge, know-how and technology is at stake, and so much already on the table! GENE, WE NEED CAPITAL PRECISELY TO DO THESE THINGS AS WE STATE THEM; IF WE HAD ALL THE CAPITAL REQUIRED TO COMPLETE THE RESEARCH, AND IT WAS COMPLETE, WE WOULD NOT NEED THESE PEOPLE'S PROMISES OF DELIVERING THE $15- $16M, nor the extra(?) 200K.

> This kind of deal, of
> course, is well known in such mundane areas as books and movie rights. This
> would accomplish two things: 1. Help you out financially and PR-wise, with
> no long term commitment other than good faith attempt to close the loop on
> the inverter/PAGD -- this mysterious psychological milestone that is the
> holy grail of the new energy field. I do agree with Greer that this
> overcomes that last remaining perceptual barrier to potential large
> investors.

Well, if they just want to contribute those 200K to develop the inverter solution further contingent on the first step regarding inhouse testing of the horse prototype, and with no strings attached other than the right of first refusal on that inverter system, say after 1 year - and thus intend to leave us free to license the converter and reactor technologies and find investors for them, that is still something else, since we all know that a contribution is welcome but the capital being considered also cannot account for what is here needed to deliver such a closed inverter loop. They are putting the crown before the effort it takes to get there, so we will not be able to make any representations of success. That would have to be written as such. Let us think about this also - and see what Uri has to say, and what Selman comes up with, say, within a month. Obviously we need much clarification also on what we wrote above.

> But I also defended, of course, the existence of the converter
> PAGD performance now as meriting a Z-prize win.

Excellent - and thank you for this.

> The trip was a very big accomplishment -- new directions for Aethera; two
> potential investment parties, both of whom are now very serious about PAGD;
> and the potential to work on "new CF" together.

It was a very good series of meetings, indeed.
(...)
Best wishes and best luck!

Alex & Paulo

Subject: Re: Glad you're back!
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 17:23:48 -0800
From: Eugene F. Mallove
To: Paulo and Alexandra Correa
CC: Uri Soudak, Malgosia Askanas

Dear Alex and Paulo,
(...)

>> I would very much like your opinion on the nature of Fred Mayer's/Reitz's
>> work. Exciting, indeed, that there may be some interesting tie-in --
>> however remote -- with your ideas. I only wish I had had another day there
>> to discuss the "new CF" matter with you! I have some ideas as to how to
>> achieve funding for it. They are not fully formed as yet. The simplest way,
>> of course, is to have a large chunk flow through NEF.
>
> It will not be before we can find some time to read all the CF papers you have
> sent us that we will be in a position to give you some idea of our thoughts on
> the Mayer/Reitz' papers. Also keep in mind that the cost Paulo quoted you re
> this work did not include any form of personal compensation, and without that we
> cannot survive. But we will cross that bridge when and if we get there.

OK, indeed, I'd like to know something about the entire financial picture for that potential project.

>>> We very much wished we could have been flies on the
>>> wall as you and Ted had breakfast and made your way out to the airport. Any
>>> stories to report?
>>
>> Nothing of great consequence. Ted humorously described the dynamic of the
>> encounter between Paulo and Steve as that between two "alpha males" -- I
>> could not disagree!
>
> Well we do disagree - for between alpha or beta or theta or delta males or
> females, there was far more to it than just that -

Don't disagree too hard. It was just a superficial observation. Substantive opinions from them will be of more import.

> and in fact, be it through the
> 'psychiatric' or the 'military' arm, we are all rather suspicious of Greer,
> his motivation and those behind him.

"Behind him" is an interesting phrase. I view him as a very stubborn independent spirit with a dislike for secret organizations. Of course, you may argue that he is a convenient "confusing factor" for "others" -- with that view I would have sympathy, if I could imagine who these "others" might be.

> And, more importantly, there are the very
> serious issues of the conditions and their backdrops on both sides.

Yes, his conditions must meet your requirements, and it may or may not be possible to bridge the gap.

>> My main discussion with Ted concerned a comparison of your work with that of
>> the entirety of the new energy field as I know it. I pointed out that, of
>> course, if they found something more robust and at the same time lower up
>> front cost, that I agreed they should go with that.
>
> Do they have a pinnable timetable for this evaluation?

Nope. But the Z-Prize PR talks about the end of this year which is only weeks away.

>> However, I told him that
>> I very much doubted that something like that existed ( in the "white world").
>
> ...nor in the 'black' one either - which is why the 'military' interpretation
> we suggested appears more and more as the correct one. They may cite all the Bob
> Lazar types they wish - but unless and until we see any actual _scientific_
> evidence - not just conspiratorial hearsay - that would give us any indication
> whatsoever that these things are 'already known' - it has as much value to us
> as a broke mafioso diamond dealer telling us they'll take our diamond off our
> hands for a pittance and as a 'favour' because it's really only glass and in their
> back rooms they have much bigger and better ones... No. We don't buy this.

I appreciate this view of yours and I agree with it. I do not rule out that there are advanced technologies that have been "captured" -- but I also think it may be a self- activating delusion among a group of people who each think the others have an "in" with the "black knowledge" and they don't want to be left out.

> Not for one second. As scientists, we have absolutely no reason to.

OK, fair enough.

>> Therefore, I kept hammering home the notion that the PAGD was the
>> way to go. I advocated redefining the terms of the Z-prize so that it would
>> fit what you already have in the PAGD. I discussed methods of testing,
>> concerns about tube lifetimes, etc. My impression is that we are in the
>> driver's seat and that something good may potentially come out of this.
>
> We do not share this view, Gene.

OK, so you think there is little chance that anything of value -- real money -- can come from Greer/Loder?

> And if anything comes our way, it will have to
> meet the conditions that Paulo put on the table. We saw no indication that
> Greer has any interest in not driving his operation exactly according to whatever is
> his preconceived plan.

Consider this: He may soon find himself in a rather desperate situation in which there is no one to give the Z-Prize to -- except to you, since you may have the only real technology out there that is even close to being properly measurable and real. That explains my reference to the "driver's seat."

>> I bought up a bridging idea in connection with a redefined Z-Prize "win" by
>> you: 1. PAGD is declared a winner, based on O/U testing, whose results are
>> publicly reported, of course;
>
> Does this mean that: Testing of the PAGD converter at our premises as per the
> patent and with their complete payment for all labour, material and consultancy
> is carried out and the claims verified: PAGD is declared the winner. We
> receive $1M. -?

Maybe. But it may also mean that he just declares victory on the basis of testing and proving the PAGD, gives you some significant money (less than $1M) but states that more work is needed to get to what the Z-Prize had really hope to find: the self- sustaining device. Since I know their actual present accounts are only a few hundred thousand dolars, even that partial prize will be difficult for them to manage, without getting more support from their friends -- whoever these are.

>> 2. A "option" amount of say $200,000 is given
>> to you as part of the Z-prize
>
> What does this mean? That $200K are given to us on top of the $1M to secure
> an option on closing the loop on the inverter for 1 year?

Please understand -- this discussion with Loder was initiated by me only with Loder and we were trying to invent some method for everybody to be satisfied in the beginning. That may not be possible. Greer did not initiate these ideas.

>> which allows you to *try* to take the existing
>> inverter/flyweel configuration with the low power tube and make it close the
>> loop to eliminate the battery -- the point being that at a certain time
>> thereafter, say 1 year, if you had achieved that, this would trigger
>> negotiations on the $15 million matter which they would legally have the
>> first right of refusal to pick up your best offer.
>
> What really bothers us about this bridge scheme is that, once again, it wants
> us to deliver something we do not have

--NO commitment to do it was the intent.

> and makes the investment in Azure be
> dependent - not upon testing the hard working horse - the converter system as
> is - but something else: the closed-loop inverter, and in 1 year, no less, for
> $200K (on top of the $1M?).

The idea is to buy time for both sides with no permanent commitment by either. He gets to announce you as some kind of winner, but with a work in progress. You get to have $200K scott free. That was MY conception of it.

> And after that? This would go to a demo that others would have access to and
> that would be time zero for the $15M?

My idea was that this additional proof would stand a chance of triggering the full $15M.

> Here is our counterproposal - and we would like to hear from Uri on it: after
> we would supposedly win step 1 as we described just above, and get the $1M prize,
> this kicks in a previously written agreement (at time absolute zero) which
> commits SEAS to finance the entirety of the Azure project ($15-16M) in order
> to obtain a license to explore three products, as discussed - the reactor, the
> converter and hopefully (!) the inverter. The first milestones will be both
> the development of a rugged reactor that can be sealed and remain 'tuned' for
> demonstration purposes, as per submitted Azure plan, and the development of a
> small demo-prototype of a 1 kW converter that will be tested by mutually
> agreable civil laboratories and presented at other demos. This should be given the
> timetable of 1.5 years, and require $7-8M. Once these two milestones are
> crossed, then the development of 10 kW converter _and inverter_ systems could
> be considered, for another 1.5 -2.0 years, with a second investment of $11-8M.
> Then we would at least have transferred the know-how after the first leg of the
> journey had given us an advantage over the invariable busting of our interests
> which others will undoubtedly carry out (yes, keep the 'military' interpretation
> close in mind).

I think Greer et al must really come to the conclusion that YOU are the only real show on the block, and THEN get his eggs in order toward larger sums. These he does not have right now. He was probably counting on triggering them by the nature of the presently existing demonstration. I imagine that he cannot get himself to understand the value of what already exists in the converter. (...)

> GENE, WE NEED CAPITAL PRECISELY TO DO
> THESE THINGS AS WE STATE THEM; IF WE HAD ALL THE CAPITAL
> REQUIRED TO COMPLETE THE RESEARCH, AND IT WAS COMPLETE,
> WE WOULD NOT NEED THESE PEOPLE'S PROMISES OF
> DELIVERING THE $15-$16M, nor the extra(?) 200K.

I well know this. You are in a tough position in having all the evidence that should be needed to be richly rewarded, but maybe it will not seem adequate to most parties.

>> This kind of deal, of
>> course, is well known in such mundane areas as books and movie rights. This
>> would accomplish two things: 1. Help you out financially and PR-wise, with
>> no long term commitment other than good faith attempt to close the loop on
>> the inverter/PAGD -- this mysterious psychological milestone that is the
>> holy grail of the new energy field. I do agree with Greer that this
>> overcomes that last remaining perceptual barrier to potential large
>> investors.
>
> Well, if they just want to contribute those 200K to develop the inverter
> solution further contingent on the first step regarding inhouse testing of the horse
> prototype, and with no strings attached other than the right of first refusal
> on that inverter system, say after 1 year - and thus intend to leave us free to
> license the converter and reactor technologies and find investors for them,
> that is still something else,

That is how I conceived it.
(...)
>> But I also defended, of course, the existence of the converter
>> PAGD performance now as meriting a Z-prize win.
>
> Excellent - and thank you for this.

My defense may be for naught if they do not have the needed conditions to get the $1 million, which is why I was trying to get you $200K or so.

>> The trip was a very big accomplishment -- new directions for Aethera; two
>> potential investment parties, both of whom are now very serious about PAGD;
>> and the potential to work on "new CF" together.
>
> It was a very good series of meetings, indeed.

Yes.

> Best wishes and best luck!

Thanks..

> Alex & Paulo
-Gene

Subject: Re: Glad you're back!
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 00:13:19 -0500
From: Paulo and Alexandra Correa
To: Eugene F. Mallove

Dear Gene -
(...)
> "Behind him" is an interesting phrase. I view him as a very stubborn
> independent spirit with a dislike for secret organizations. Of course, you
> may argue that he is a convenient "confusing factor" for "others" -- with
> that view I would have sympathy, if I could imagine who these "others" might be.

Well - Greer's worldview is a very funny predicament indeed - on the one hand, the people who support him come from the black world where everything, of course, is already known (thanks to Roswell, TTB, LaViolette and Puthof!!), and basically courtesy of the ETs. On the other hand, these same ETs, who have conveyed the message of universal harmony and salvation of Gaia to Greer, and have conveyed the technology to the black world, are not able to convey any good knowledge to the 'white world'. Which is why one needs transparency and those 15 layers of insurance...

(...)
> OK, so you think there is little chance that anything of value -- real money
> -- can come from Greer/Loder?

After what you wrote below, no, nothing.

> > And if anything comes our way, it will have to
> > meet the conditions that Paulo put on the table. We saw no indication that
> > Greer has any interest in not driving his operation exactly according to whatever
> > is his preconceived plan.
>
> Consider this: He may soon find himself in a rather desperate situation in
> which there is no one to give the Z-Prize to -- except to you, since you may
> have the only real technology out there that is even close to being properly
> measurable and real. That explains my reference to the "driver's seat."

And in this you are absolutely correct - but these 'missionary boys' never consider intellectual capital as some form of capital that can give checks...Yet, the situation you describe is indeed likely to come to pass - filled with other attempts at diluting our position (wild claims...).

> >> I bought up a bridging idea in connection with a redefined Z-Prize "win" by
> >> you: 1. PAGD is declared a winner, based on O/U testing, whose results are
> >> publicly reported, of course;
> >
> > Does this mean that: Testing of the PAGD converter at our premises as per the
> > patent and with their complete payment for all labour, material and
> > consultancy is carried out and the claims verified: PAGD is declared the winner.
> > We receive $1M. -?
>
> Maybe. But it may also mean that he just declares victory on the basis of
> testing and proving the PAGD, gives you some significant money (less than $1
> M) but states that more work is needed to get to what the Z-Prize had really
> hope to find: the self-sustaining device. Since I know their actual present
> accounts are only a few hundred thousand dolars, even that partial prize
> will be difficult for them to manage, without getting more support from
> their friends -- whoever these are.

Alright - this then is a complete no go. We thought - up until now - that that $1M was firm, and the question was only one of negotiating whether there would be transfer of know-how to third parties in the absence of a committment to develop the technology, and whether this commitment could be secured without that transfer. But in this scheme, there is nada - what is 200K? That is what we already spend in a good year! That is the cost of our move out of here! The prize was supposedly fixed and the conditions state:

"Further, the only purported zero point energy devices we will consider are those: (...) Configured to allow metered measurement of input electrical wattage and metered measurement of output electrical wattage. (The cleanest measurement is DC in and DC out. Note that we are not interested in voltage or amperage but only in their product; i.e.wattage."

Less than the prize as our price out of here and as a chance to begin ABRI somewhere else, forget it! Then we're back to the scheme of the spokes and floating these ventures on their own.

> >> 2. A "option" amount of say $200,000 is given to you as part of the Z-prize
> >
> > What does this mean? That $200K are given to us on top of the $1M to secure
> > an option on closing the loop on the inverter for 1 year?
>
> Please understand -- this discussion with Loder was initiated by me only
> with Loder and we were trying to invent some method for everybody to be
> satisfied in the beginning. That may not be possible. Greer did not
> initiate these ideas.

Alright - we just hope they'll go no further then.

> >> which allows you to *try* to take the existing
> >> inverter/flyweel configuration with the low power tube and make it close the
> >> loop to eliminate the battery -- the point being that at a certain time
> >> thereafter, say 1 year, if you had achieved that, this would trigger
> >> negotiations on the $15 million matter which they would legally have the
> >> first right of refusal to pick up your best offer.
> >
> > What really bothers us about this bridge scheme is that, once again, it wants
> > us to deliver something we do not have
>
> --NO commitment to do it was the intent.

No, effectively the prize - as they themselves defined it - was bargained away.

> > and makes the investment in Azure be
> > dependent - not upon testing the hard working horse - the converter system as
> > is - but something else: the closed-loop inverter, and in 1 year, no less, for
> > $200K (on top of the $1M?).
>
> The idea is to buy time for both sides with no permanent commitment by
> either. He gets to announce you as some kind of winner, but with a work in
> progress. You get to have $200K scott free. That was MY conception of it.

No, the prize, upon agreed conditions of testing and commitment to subsequent development and technology transfer, was what we had hoped would be the legitimate outcome.

> > And after that? This would go to a demo that others would have access to and
> > that would be time zero for the $15M?
>
> My idea was that this additional proof would stand a chance of triggering
> the full $15M.
> >
> > Here is our counterproposal - and we would like to hear from Uri on it: after
> > we would supposedly win step 1 as we described just above, and get the $1M prize,
> > this kicks in a previously written agreement (at time absolute zero) which
> > commits SEAS to finance the entirety of the Azure project ($15-16M) in order
> > to obtain a license to explore three products, as discussed - the reactor, the
> > converter and hopefully (!) the inverter. The first milestones will be both
> > the development of a rugged reactor that can be sealed and remain 'tuned' for
> > demonstration purposes, as per submitted Azure plan, and the development of a
> > small demo-prototype of a 1 kW converter that will be tested by mutually
> > agreable civil laboratories and presented at other demos. This should be given
> > the timetable of 1.5 years, and require $7-8M. Once these two milestones are
> > crossed, then the development of 10 kW converter _and inverter_ systems could
> > be considered, for another 1.5 -2.0 years, with a second investment of $11-8M.
> > Then we would at least have transferred the know-how after the first leg of the
> > journey had given us an advantage over the invariable busting of our interests
> > which others will undoubtedly carry out (yes, keep the 'military' interpretation
> > close in mind).
>
> I think Greer et al must really come to the conclusion that YOU are the only
> real show on the block, and THEN get his eggs in order toward larger sums.
> These he does not have right now. He was probably counting on triggering
> them by the nature of the presently existing demonstration. I imagine that
> he cannot get himself to understand the value of what already exists in the
> converter.

Yes, this is where the appearance lies, but simply because we have refused to transfer the know-how at time zero. Which would mean running the obvious risk of having it ripped off.

> (...) your proposal may be premature.

It clearly is, now that we understand the behind the scene matter of the Z prize.

> (...) You are in a tough position in having all the evidence
> that should be needed to be richly rewarded, but maybe it will not seem
> adequate to most parties.

If Greer is an example of this, yes - but then what could be 'adequate' when apparently he could just as well conjure up the ETs and obtain something far more 'adequate' regardless of whatever we might provide.

> > Well, if they just want to contribute those 200K to develop the inverter
> > solution further contingent on the first step regarding inhouse testing of the horse
> > prototype, and with no strings attached other than the right of first refusal
> > on that inverter system, say after 1 year - and thus intend to leave us free to
> > license the converter and reactor technologies and find investors for them,
> > that is still something else,
>
> That is how I conceived it.

Yes, but the prize for the converter was the essential meal - and we now understand that got sideswiped.
(...)

> I hope I have given you needed clarification above.

Yes, it is all clarified now - without the Z prize for the converter we have no interest in Greer, unless he just wants to give us $200K to assist us in developing the inverter, but we certainly cannot make any promises with that kind of money. We could not even hire more than maybe two good very part-time technicians for the job - not to mention machining, winding, parts, test beds, detectors and measurement apparatuses.

> >> But I also defended, of course, the existence of the converter
> >> PAGD performance now as meriting a Z-prize win.
> >
> > Excellent - and thank you for this.
>

> My defense may be for naught if they do not have the needed conditions to
> get the $1 million, which is why I was trying to get you $200K or so
.

That is what is now clear.
(...)
Alex & Paulo

Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 07:27:41 -0800
Subject: My annotated memo to Greer
From: Eugene F. Mallove
To: Paulo and Alexandra Correa

Dear Alex and Paulo,

My annotation and comment to Greer BEFORE he approved my sending the memo to you.

- Gene

------ Forwarded Message

From: Eugene F. Mallove
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 00:11:50 -0800
To: Steve Greer, Ted Loder
Subject: Re: Memo to Correa for Comment

Dear Steve and Ted,

First, I thank you VERY much for visiting the Correas in Toronto. I am glad that you have continuing interest in their work.

I have read your memo, which is a most sincere and appreciated effort on your part. However, it will almost certainly fail, I predict, to meet with a positive response from them. I do not want to speak for them, so perhaps -- with your permission -- I should just send it to them as is? I will do so, if you approve that action.

For your information, I have annotated your draft memo with the reasons for my concern, knowing something of the interests of the Correas -- and having observed other negotiations.

All good wishes,

- Gene

> Memo for Correa
> Ted, Gene: FYI and comments prn. Thanks for all, Steve
>
> 20 November 2002
>
> Dear Dr. Correa,
>
> We would like to thank you for taking the time to meet with us at your home
> in Toronto this past weekend. We have a much better idea of the status of
> your technology and would like to propose the following:
>
> 1. In order to do a meaningful test of the PAGD, we would need to have some
> of our consultants and advisors collaborate with you on configuring the
> system so that net exportable energy is achieved.

You have an immediate problem here. They already HAVE "net exportable energy" in the converter system that runs from battery to battery --- at much better than a 5/1 ratio. As I told Ted on our flight back, the converter system can be used, in principle, as a means RIGHT NOW -- to charge batteries for electric vehicles with free energy. This is not enough??

> We understand that this is
> not now the situation but feel that there may be people with whom we are
> working who could bring some fresh perspectives to the problem. We feel that
> professional collaboration and consultation on the problems facing the
> technology may possibly result in a viable near-term solution.

If this consultancy is accepted, the Correas will surely attempt to persuade the consultants of the massive UTILITARIAN over-unity condition that exists already, using the "ping-pong" charging approach that has already been proved and which can be shown to the consultants.

> 2. We would suggest a 2-3 day technical meeting at which you could first
> present the technology, its status and details of functioning, as well as
> current limitations and problems. The team would then consult together and
> explore solutions to the energy input / power up system, and the output
> configuration. The goal would be to design a solution to the current problem
> of maintaining resonance while pulling off excess, net gains in power, and
> also configuring the power in/power out systems so that they are easily
> measurable and unambiguous.

They are already unambiguous. What YOU are talking about is a program of development of the inverter configuration which will give you the Table-Top device (with no battery packs in ping pong mode) that you THINK you need now to convince potential investors. The Correas' perspective -- and mine -- is that IF the particular prospective investors do not understand what is already there (after it is tested by the consultants) and are not thereby willing to put up serious money -- as requested by the Correas for the 2- 3 year development program that will effectively end the oil age -- then this proposal will go nowhere. The investors would not have the right strength and spirit. Steve and Ted, $15 million is a pittance compared to the potentiality of PAGD! IF you have no investors who can be persuaded of that fact after the consultants verify it, then we are back to square one, I am sorry to say.

> Ideally, the team would come up with a number of
> solutions to solve this problem and close the loop on the system (that is,
> provide input from the output net gain, maintain resonance and have net
> exportable power). Research into this problem would continue after the
> meeting by the team.

Under no circumstances would the Correas allow others to "invent" with them what they are fully qualified to invent with the hired staff during the funded development program which they seek. Whether you realize it or not, the very suggestion of having them be "hand-held" to the goal they already have identified as what they will work on in the funded program, would be insulting to them.

> 3. Proposed solutions would be presented and discussed with you and other
> team members, and a feasibility analysis would be done to explore the time
> and costs associated with implementation.

They already have those costs spelled out in their proposal. These can be discussed, of course.

> 4. If the solutions looked viable, SEAS would fund the construction and
> fabrication of the new system, provided they could be done on a reasonable
> time and cost basis.

What time and cost basis are you considering -- approximately? Please spell that out.

>On the other hand, if the solutions do not look viable
> at this time for either technological or excessive cost reasons, then we
> might wish to not go forward. Keep in mind that we may, by mutual consent,
> wish to readdress these development issues in the future at such time as SEAS
> has a larger research and development fund available.

I think this is the key problem that attends the SEAS effort -- and all other efforts to bring new energy to the world: The vicious Catch 22 -- we don't have enough money to make the "easily believable" system and we are not going to get the money because there is no "easily believable system." In other words, you perhaps do NOT have the kind of investors who will see the Correa technology for what is right now, and thereby commit funds -- $15million -- which are a pittance, of course, in the context of what this effort is to achieve. Gentlemen: Unless you find something real and "better" than what the Correas have right now (and good luck on that one!), I think the SEAS effort may terminate without the awarding of a Z-Prize and without any CERTAIN over unity device in hand. The Correa device is over-unity -- massively so. It is 100% repeatable, and it is here NOW, for God's sake!!

> 5. It should be noted that our goal is not is design a final,
> manufacture-ready prototype, but to design a demonstration system that
> clearly shows over-unity energy generation with unambiguous, robust net
> energy output in the kilowatt range, thus proving both the system's
> scientific reality and economic viability.

What you want is sitting in the Correa lab right now -- the tubes, as is, that produce electric vehicle battery-charging energy for FREE! Imagine announcing THAT at a press conference! It could be done once the verification of the PAGD in converter mode is accomplished.

> 6. SEAS would support the cost of this process plus provide you with a
> consulting fee of Canadian $8000.

What period of work does this $8000 cover -- days, weeks?

>You would agree to license the technology
> to SEAS if a suitable solution to the above challenges are found. Generally
> we would support a gross revenue licensing royalty of 3-5%, depending on the
> state of the art of the technology and how much further R & D, patenting and
> other development costs would be needed for the technology to reach final
> marketability.

I see no reference here, one way or the other, to their request for $15 million development program to get to the robust, pre-production prototypes. This must be addressed.

> 7. All members of the team would work under strict confidentiality
> agreements, covering both your technology and SEAS information, plans and
> systems.
>
> 8. An Agreement In Principle would be signed by you and SEAS prior to this
> process beginning, outlining the relationship and an agreement to license
> should a suitable solution to the current problems be found.
>
> Please feel free to contact us to discuss this proposal in further detail.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Steven M. Greer MD, CEO and Chairman, SEAS
>
> Ted Loder PhD, Chief Science Advisor

------ End of Forwarded Message

Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 07:23:41 -0800
Subject: FW: Memo to Correa for Comment
From: Eugene F. Mallove
To: Paulo and Alexandra Correa

Dear Alex,

I am forwarding this memo, with Steve's just received permission. By parallel e-mail, I will send you comments he received from me BEFORE he OK'd me sending this to you.

- Gene

------ Forwarded Message

From: Dr S Greer
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 19:19:23 EST
To: Ted Loder, Eugene F. Mallove
Subject: Memo to Correa for Comment

Memo for Correa
Ted, Gene: FYI and comments prn. Thanks for all, Steve

20 November 2002

Ted Loder PhD, Chief Science Advisor

------ End of Forwarded Message

Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 17:54:44 -0500
From: Paulo and Alexandra Correa
To: Eugene F. Mallove
Subject: Re: My annotated memo to Greer

Dear Gene -

These were excellent comments. We made a few others - just for you - down below.

> ------ Forwarded Message
> From: Eugene F. Mallove
> Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 00:11:50 -0800
> To: Steve Greer, Ted Loder > Subject: Re: Memo to Correa for Comment
>
>(...)
> >
> > 2. We would suggest a 2-3 day technical meeting at which you could first
> > present the technology, its status and details of functioning, as well as
> > current limitations and problems. The team would then consult together and
> > explore solutions to the energy input / power up system, and the output
> > configuration. The goal would be to design a solution to the current problem
> > of maintaining resonance while pulling off excess, net gains in power, and
> > also configuring the power in/power out systems so that they are easily
> > measurable and unambiguous.
>
> They are already unambiguous. What YOU are talking about is a program of
> development of the inverter configuration which will give you the Table-Top
> device (with no battery packs in ping pong mode) that you THINK you need now
> to convince potential investors. The Correas' perspective -- and mine -- is
> that IF the particular prospective investors do not understand what is
> already there (after it is tested by the consultants) and are not thereby
> willing to put up serious money -- as requested by the Correas for the 2- 3
> year development program that will effectively end the oil age -- then this
> proposal will go nowhere. The investors would not have the right strength
> and spirit. Steve and Ted, $15 million is a pittance compared to the
> potentiality of PAGD! IF you have no investors who can be persuaded of that
> fact after the consultants verify it, then we are back to square one, I am
> sorry to say.

Masterly put, Gene!

> > Ideally, the team would come up with a number of
> > solutions to solve this problem and close the loop on the system (that is,
> > provide input from the output net gain, maintain resonance and have net
> > exportable power). Research into this problem would continue after the
> > meeting by the team.
>
> Under no circumstances would the Correas allow others to "invent" with them
> what they are fully qualified to invent with the hired staff during the
> funded development program which they seek. Whether you realize it or not,
> the very suggestion of having them be "hand-held" to the goal they already
> have identified as what they will work on in the funded program, would be
> insulting to them.

Precisely!

> (...)
> >
> >
> > 6. SEAS would support the cost of this process plus provide you with a
> > consulting fee of Canadian $8000.
>
> What period of work does this $8000 cover -- days, weeks?
>
> >You would agree to license the technology
> > to SEAS if a suitable solution to the above challenges are found. Generally
> > we would support a gross revenue licensing royalty of 3-5%, depending on the
> > state of the art of the technology and how much further R & D, patenting and
> > other development costs would be needed for the technology to reach final
> > marketability.
>
> I see no reference here, one way or the other, to their request for $15
> million development program to get to the robust, pre-production prototypes.
> This must be addressed.

The $8K is a sordid joke. (And the lack of mention of the $1M prize, another and better one!) We charge $300.00/man-hr for consultancy; that would be 27 hours. It's a joke. Two battery packs cost that much! Where have this people been?? And our return on the Azure project, effectively, would be 3-5%???

Well, Gene, it is precisely as you predicted in your response to them - there's hardly a point in even responding to this. It is silly - so silly we cannot believe it. We will contemplate in the next few days whether to answer it, but just to keep the record straight (a task that we find ourselves having to do more and more often - and it is really a pain) - since these people have no conception of what they are talking about.

Paulo just finished reading the Loder paper, and Alex read it yesterday - what a pile of crap! The same pile of crap of Kirk Hawkins & Co - about the black world, ETs & etc. This people believe in parallel universes, time that regresses with superluminal speeds, and every other idiocy conceivable or imaginary. The best part is that they cannot even explain the simple lifter phenomenon!!

Anyway, we thought that your response was excellent.

Thank you for everything you did with respect to this matter.

Best wishes

Alex & Paulo

Subject: DVD progress
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 19:09:07 -0800
From: Eugene F. Mallove
To: Paulo and Alexandra Correa

Dear Alex and Paulo,

(...)
Glad you were happy with my notes to Greer and Loder. Perhaps a definitive, firm note from you would be of some value. You are free to quote me, of course. No need to "blast them," I'd say. Just leave them with the message that they have a lot to learn, which they do.

- Gene

Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 18:03:17 -0800
Subject: FW: Memo to Correa for Comment
From: Eugene F. Mallove
To: Paulo and Alexandra Correa

FYI -- In confidence that I sent this to you at all! I wish to stay on relatively good terms with Ted and Steve. I'll send you my response to this e-mail, as well as Steve's not to me today.

- Gene

------ Forwarded Message

From: Ted Loder
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 09:29:36 EST
To: Eugene F. Mallove, Dr S Greer
Subject: Re: Memo to Correa for Comment

Dear Gene and Steve:

Thoughts not to be sent to the Correas.

Thank you for you constructive observations re the memo we wrote to the Correas. Now, I consider this as a proposal on how to get started in a dialogue. If you feel the Correas would consider this the final offer then it will go no where.

Having said that, let me make some observations. We are proposing that we start slowly and bring in some knowledgeable members of our team who could brainstorm with the Correas some easily implemented improvements that would make it easier to test the PAGD system. We are offering money and help to move this thing forward. What I see getting in the way is the major reluctance of the Correas to involve other scientists in the development of their baby. As long as this continues to be their philosophy, it will never move forward. Keep in mind that we are in no way intending to take their technology, we want to work with them to get it out of the shop. This is not hand-holding, but using various resources in a team approach to move forward. But the fact that the patent has been around for nearly 7 years and nobody is making them, suggests that this will continue to be the modes operendi as long as it continues to be only in the Correas hands.

Part of the reason we are going slowly is the statements made by Paulo re the resonance issue, i.e. that the system might not work without the special converter and motor or battery pack system. If he were willing explore with our team some ideas to get beyond this then fine. If he is using this as a mine field to persuade us that the whole system may be unusable and only he can fix it with lots of money and time, then these reasons may be just his unwillingness to let go as I mentioned above, and he may not even realize what he is doing in this regard.

Good point about the $8000 offer to consult at the start. I think Steve needs to define the expectations for this money and time frame. In re to the $15 Million, I just don't think that SEAS is ready to even address that at this point.

Frankly, on a personal note, I feel that it would be very difficult to work with him. He appeared to be just looking for controversy, an argument, or even a fight. He had trouble focusing on the issues at hand and seemed determined to dazzle us with philosophical ramblings, and his, at times arrogant views. This does not mean that he is not brilliant or that he is really on to something. My sense is that this is true in both instances. However, he continually degraded what Steve, CSETI and the Disclosure project has done over the past decade and what SEAS is presently planning to do.

Just some thoughts, I have to get to class right now, so I will end here,

Best to both of you

------ End of Forwarded Message

Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 18:03:19 -0800
Subject: FW: Memo to Correa for Comment
From: Eugene F. Mallove
To: Paulo and Alexandra Correa

FYI -- my responses to the memo.

- Gene

------ Forwarded Message

From: Eugene F. Mallove
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 10:35:46 -0800
To: The Loder, Steve Greer
Subject: Re: Memo to Correa for Comment

Dear Ted and Steve,

> Dear Gene and Steve:
>
> Thoughts not to be sent to the Correas.

OK, will not pass them on. I'll just react.

> Thank you for you constructive observations re the memo we wrote to the
> Correas. Now, I consider this as a proposal on how to get started in a
> dialogue. If you feel the Correas would consider this the final offer then
> it will go no where.

My impression so far is that it falls so far short of what they had expected, that it probably will go nowhere.

> Having said that, let me make some observations. We are proposing that we
> start slowly and bring in some knowledgeable members of our team who could
> brainstorm with the Correas some easily implemented improvements that would
> make it easier to test the PAGD system.

Right away you have a problem. You are suggesting that there may be some "easily implemented improvements" --not likely. They have been at this for years and it is unlikely that these matters have not been thoroughly investigated. Further more, they have already on a shoe string made progress -- a few years ago they did not have a flywheel driven as they do now. You have the underlying assumption that they have probably overlooked some simple matter. Highly unlikely. For people who already have mastered self-running motors (the aether motors), I can only assume that they have the general outlines of the engineering path to make the PAGD more transparent to testing -- for folks, such as you, who seem to think it is not so already. The greatest tragedy of this matter is that the performance of the PAGD as a FREE ENERGY Battery Charger for electric vehicles is already manifest (your consultant could determine that), and this is not considered enough? Something does not compute. You need to think long and hard about that fact.

> We are offering money and help to move this thing forward.

The money is quite low and inadequate. The technical help is of -- generally -- unknown character. Only one name has been brought up so far.

> What I see getting in the way is the major
> reluctance of the Correas to involve other scientists in the development of
> their baby.

This is not true. Their plan calls for a team of about 50 people. What is getting in the way -- as it has gotten in the way in the past -- is that the group seeking to make hay/profit with the technology (in this instance, SEAS) thinks it can get in "on the cheap." SEAS evidently lacks financial clout equal to the task. That is unfortunate for us all. I will be continuing to explore the the Correas funding sources that do have the clout without question but which sources need proper introduction to the PAGD and other technologies.

> As long as this continues to be their philosophy, it will never move forward.

Again, you misunderstand what they wish to do. They do not want to do it on their own -- hence their detailed plan for bringing robust devices out, but they fully understand the financial requirements of developing this technology -- which are quite modest. You know very, very well the extremely modest nature of $15 million compared to what the outcome will be. Your mistake is that you think this can be bought at "bargain basement" prices -- far below the $15 million. It can't be.

> Keep in mind that we are in no way intending to take their
> technology, we want to work with them to get it out of the shop.

There was no mention in the proposal of the actual $1 million prize being awarded. Were you aware of that? And, 3-5% royalties for their technologies is not exactly generous.

> This is not
> hand-holding, but using various resources in a team approach to move forward.
> But the fact that the patent has been around for nearly 7 years and nobody
> is making them, suggests that this will continue to be the modes operendi as
> long as it continues to be only in the Correas hands.

If all the useless efforts in CHASING evanescent other technologies, including the problematic cold fusion, had not been expended over the past seven years and others had taken the Correas' patents seriously enough, the PAGD revolution today would BY FAR dwarf the cold fusion activity in the world. We would already have robust devices.

> Part of the reason we are going slowly is the statements made by Paulo re the
> resonance issue, i.e. that the system might not work without the special
> converter and motor or battery pack system. If he were willing explore with
> our team some ideas to get beyond this then fine. If he is using this as a
> mine field to persuade us that the whole system may be unusable and only he
> can fix it with lots of money and time, then these reasons may be just his
> unwillingness to let go as I mentioned above, and he may not even realize
> what he is doing in this regard.

I do not think the situation is as you suggest. I think it is much more straightforward. The job at hand requires muscle and until such time as someone with the right motivation and financial muscle steps up to help, the technology will languish.

> Good point about the $8000 offer to consult at the start. I think Steve
> needs to define the expectations for this money and time frame. In re to
> the $15 Million, I just don't think that SEAS is ready to even address that
> at this point.

Then it is quite clear that SEAS is not in the right frame of mind with respect to the Correas' kind of work. You will have to seek technologies elsewhere.

> Frankly, on a personal note, I feel that it would be very difficult to work
> with him. He appeared to be just looking for controversy, an argument, or
> even a fight.

Yes, he was testing you guys -- that is for sure! As it turned out, he was right about suspecting that SEAS did not have the financial means to follow through. The Correas are not looking for a fight or arguments -- they have plenty of those to deal with already, as do I, from those who have attacked cold fusion, PAGD, aether motors, etc. --publicly and viciously.

> He had trouble focusing on the issues at hand and seemed
> determined to dazzle us with philosophical ramblings, and his, at times
> arrogant views. This does not mean that he is not brilliant or that he is
> really on to something.

I think this comment reveals that SEAS is unprepared to ask and answer for itself the following extremely pertinent question: Do the Correas or do they not have their hands on a generally correct physics picture or this universe? If they do, based on experiments outlined in their Monographs, it is very important for SEAS to learn this. Suggestion: As a starter, why not assign some of the technical people who were to be used in a consulting effort to validate the EXPERIMENTS with Tesla coils, electroscopes, light, etc. that are spelled out in the Monographs? That way, instead of waving the generic "ZPE" flag SEAS might learn where the real answers lie.

> My sense is that this is true in both instances.
> However, he continually degraded what Steve, CSETI and the Disclosure project
> has done over the past decade and what SEAS is presently planning to do.

I think he has doubts about taking as a *scientific proof* of the large claim CSETI is making, based on the testimony of many people, however well-trained and important, that ET-related technologies exist within black programs.

> Just some thoughts, I have to get to class right now, so I will end here,
>
> Best to both of you

I am sure my sincere comments will not be pleasing to you, but there is no point in either party expending more time if the conditions are not right. Still, I am delighted that good friends like you were able to meet with the Correas and learn something of their accomplishments and desires. It was a small step in scientific history to have had that meeting. Perhaps down the road something will work out.

Best wishes,

Gene Mallove

------ End of Forwarded Message

Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 18:03:19 -0800
Subject: FW: Memo to Correa for Comment
From: Eugene F. Mallove
To: Paulo and Alexandra Correa

FYI -- to which I have not yet replied.

- Gene

------ Forwarded Message

From: Dr S Greer
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 10:52:26 EST
To: Eugene F. Mallove, Ted Loder
Subject: Re: Memo to Correa for Comment

Since we are speaking frankly (which I appreciate, BTW):

Gene, you have no idea what our financial resources are and you statements that you do are off-mark entirely. The amount is not the problem, it is who and what team would be managing those funds; Correa could only be the leader of the R and D team, not the management - that is obvious from his basic characteristics. He could have 15 billion dollars and it would not make a difference if there was not good project management etc.

The system we saw seems not testable at this point. I believe your assumed calculated energy output for the fly wheel motor could be off significantly, and at any rate, nobody would rely on such calculations to claim over unity and then put up $15MM. The battery to battery system, if reconfigured, may be a useful test, but only IF it includes an exportable battery charged system, as you claim. We saw nothing of the sort in Toronto, though it may be able to be designed. This is what we are offering to do.

As for others finding simple solutions to the export problem: How can you know that is not possible unless it is tried? Nothing in Correa's speech and actions suggest that he is willing to collaborate, or has done so. Until that happens how can you or he assume that there are not solutions to the core resonance issue and exportability of the power?

As for royalties: ask any IP attorney: 3-5% is standard and usual when speaking of gross revenue, which is a huge number. It would translate to hundreds of millions to billions of dollars if the technology is capable of being commercialized and really is economically viable. The 5% number is usually associated with a technology that is market ready, with a manufacturable prototype, patenting done, etc., the PAGD is very far from that mark!

Besides, what we are suggesting would cost him nothing, and if we can make progress, or configure a valid test, why not? He has had a patent for 7 years; where is it going and with whom? Venture (vulture) capitalists will not touch it at this stage; large corporations will block it. We have a shot at it IF it is real and can be reasonably and transparently tested. AND if it is reproducible (he is not willing to allow this, you will recall; nobody will put up $15MM for a system that is not FIRST reproduced by an independent scientist, or they are fools). Proof of the pudding: there has been a patent and publicity around his device for 6-7 years and nobody has stepped up. This should tell you something.

Bottom line, we can proceed IF transparent testing proving that there is usable net power generation. If his system does generate over unity energy, I believe we could configure a test to get there. But he would need to be reasonable, respectful, collaborative and mature. I saw none of those key attributes in Toronto; question is, can he arise to the challenge? All of the great limitations are always internal.

Best always,
Steven

------ End of Forwarded Message

Date: Sun, 01 Dec 2002 23:09:28 -0500
From: Paulo and Alexandra Correa
To: Eugene F. Mallove
Subject: Re: Memo to Correa for Comment

Dear Gene -

Follows below our proposed draft of a response to Greer+ SEAS. Please give us your feedback. Do not forward it - nor mention it, since we want to be the ones sending it (...).

How was the short break?

A&P

--------------------------

Dear Dr. Greer -

Please accept our thanks for the interest you and Dr. Loder have expressed in our pulsed plasma technology.

It is unfortunate that SEAS is not in a better position to finance both the testing and the development of this technology. We were also under the impression that the amount of the Z prize already existed, and that SEAS was ready to disburse it to whomever would best demonstrate generation of power from 'space energy'.

Our patented PAGD XS NRGT converter does just that - and we have demonstrated this by exhaustive comparison of long-term resistive discharges before and after experimental runs for both the Drive and Charge packs, by oscillographic analysis, and by employment of the Ping-Pong method for dual battery charging. This makes this system ideal for measurements - in keeping with SEAS'conditions for the Z prize - for which it should fully qualify:

"Further, the only purported zero point energy devices we will consider are those: (...) Configured to allow metered measurement of input electrical wattage and metered measurement of output electrical wattage. (The cleanest measurement is DC in and DC out. Note that we are not interested in voltage or amperage but only in their product; i.e.wattage."

Up until our meeting, we were both under the impression that SEAS' Prize was firm, and for us the only open questions regarded whether there would be transfer of know- how to third parties in the absence of a committment to develop the technology, at which point this transfer would occur, and whether such commitment could be secured without that transfer at time zero. Once your positions on these matters were inflexible (no commitment, transfer of know-how to unnamed third parties before securing the Prize itself, etc), it became clear that SEAS depended on announcing a winner to raise the needed capital for the Prize, not to mention the capital we need for development of this technology.

Your argument for SEAS need for transparency was also troubling - since nothing is more transparent than the simple measurements a competent worker can make on the conversion system. Moreover, neither you nor SEAS appear to be ready to reciprocate that transparency - this too is troublesome, in that we also do not intend our plasma technology to become a banner for SEAS' operations, all the less so as the basic premises of its philosophy and political course seem - to us - to be ill-founded. For our part, we would be willing to wager that no extraterrestrial craft has ever crashed, nor been salvaged, on earth; that only secretive all-too-terrestrial craft have. This could well provide an explanation for many of the sightings from the credible witnesses that have come forth. What's more important still, we worry about the potential for disinformation that the scenario you have suggested holds in store. Specifically, and speaking of transparency,we wonder about whether the position that "the entire aether technology has been imparted by ETs to the black world of government and military science" may not be just another ensnarement routine to fish out extraordinary technologies of import to some power group.

These are considerations parallel to those which have led us to refuse to do business with political, religious or ideological groups. Of course, if SEAS had the money to award us the Z Prize, didn't insist on the transfer ab initio of the technology to unnamed third parties (besides the Naval Laboratory), and was willing to enter into a business commitment with us and our team, and would refrain from employing this relation for propagandistic purposes - we would still consider this a possibility. Unfortunately, your letter addrresses none of these issues which we discussed in our meeting. This is, of course, not to mention that the monies it envisions in light of the carefully thought out PAGD business plan - for which are currently actively engaged in seeking financing for - are so woefully inadequate as to be derisory from the start. In this respect we have nothing to add to Dr. Mallove's Annotated Memo to you.

In any case, if you and your organization are ever in the future in a better position to address these matters and are still interested, we remain ready to discuss these and other matters.

Alexandra Correa, HBA
Paulo Correa, MSc, PhD

PS - Would you kindly ask Dr. Loder to provide us with copies of the photos he took at the lab, as he promised and as per our NDA? Thank you.

Subject: Re: Memo to Correa for Comment
Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2002 07:16:13 -0800
From: Eugene F. Mallove
To: Paulo and Alexandra Correa

Dear Alex and Paulo,

> Dear Gene -
>
> Follows below our proposed draft of a response to Greer+ SEAS. Please give us
> your feedback. Do not forward it - nor mention it, since we want to be the
> ones sending it (...).

The letter is excellent. I think you should send it as is.

> How was the short break?

It was relaxing and fattening.

- Gene

Subject: Re: Memo to Correa for Comment
Date: Fri, 06 Dec 2002 22:20:28 -0500
From: Paulo and Alexandra Correa
To: Uri Soudak

Dear Uri,

(...)
The two people our mail was addressed to Greer & Loder are part of a large US end-to-secrecy group that supposedly spends a good deal of time lobbying the US government to declassify information relating to the UFO matter. They offered a one million dollar prize on their website for anyone who could demonstrate a working overunity device. But they are liars. They don't have the one million, as it turns out - but clearly are hoping if they find such a machine, the million dollars will flow to them. Greer is an opportunist - and quite delusional as well, as we found out. He told us stories of cavorting on a regular basis with materializing and dematerializing UFOs in the desert. He is of the UFO school that maintains that a secret group inside the US intelligence machine has picked up crashed UFOs, reverse engineered them and are now able to fly around at speeds greater than the speed of light, and that they are in communication with certain extraterrestrials. You no doubt have heard this line. It's very common on the internet. They have reams of military personel who will testify they have direct knowledge of all this. It's said they keep them at places like the Skunkworks and Area 51. They also claim that there are certain 'good' guys in the intelligence community who want the truth of UFOs to come out but not through 'the black world' of intelligence, but through the 'white world' of civilian enterprise... All this silliness of course demeans any importance something like the PAGD or Aether Motors could possibly have... after all, what are these little prototypes in face of the free energy, faster than light UFOs the US intelligence black-ops are flying around in... ? It's so idiotic. Naturally, they never have any scientific witnesses or information whatsoever - only masked 'informants' and 'leaked' secret information, or people eager either to disinform on the subject or to gain a little notoriety in their otherwise bland lives. How could anyone believe that the US would be spending the billions they do regularly on the space projects with NASA if they had such knowledge of cosmic engineering?

We did not know this was their bent when we agreed to meet them. We thought they were pursuing a more serious project. We also thought they had the million dollars advertized on their website - which is at -

http://www.disclosureproject.org/

The little picture at the top right is the disclosure guru Greer.

It was an unfortunate fiasco, but we now have a very clear view of who they are and how they operate. We rather suspect they act as an intelligence gathering arm and were sent to scout us out and to see how much information we would give them. Well, we gave them nothing that is not in the patents and we think our letter makes it pretty clear what we thought about the entire affair. No, we will have nothing more to do with them.

Hope this clarifies the matter,

(...)

Alex & Paulo

Subject: Re: Your trip on Wednesday
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 17:13:29 -0800
From: Eugene F. Mallove
To: Paulo and Alexandra Correa

Dear Alex and Paulo,

> Dear Gene,
>
> So you say with respect to the genesisworldenergy.com business -
>
>> No - thankfully!
>
> Yes, we too are thankful this wasn't it. Quite a slick but very suspect
> sounding operation. Almost out of the the Kirk/Greer songbook of secret
> spiritual white-op manhattan projects sending dematerialized blessings to
> the cosmos. Astonishing how many of these things are popping up - almost on
> a weekly basis now. We do wish you luck with the Wednesday meeting - but
> in light of what seems to be a new and concerted disinformation campaign
> wave - do be especially careful! We're sure whoever is behind these things
> would dearly love to move you into a position where you could be
> discredited. It's a bloody minefield! There has also been an observable
> escalation in the amount of military/computer/intel servers on our site
> since Monday - some of it coming from IE, and some of it coming in on direct
> searches for Dr. Paulo Correa. They are mostly focusing on PAGD - but also
> on milestones, Kooistra, your letters and the ABRI interview.

Very interesting pattern...
(...)

- Gene

Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 17:48:18 -0500
From: Paulo and Alexandra Correa
To: Eugene F. Mallove, Malgosia Askanas, Uri Soudak
Subject: Re: CONFIDENTIAL communication

Dear Gene,

Fine with us - it will not transpire any further (as usual, with us). But we very much doubt that Greer/Loder could have come up with something real - it is far more likely that it is something along the lines of Evolved Technologies or Grant Romundt...Who validated it?

What is the broadcast frequency?

A&P

"Eugene F. Mallove" wrote:

> Dear Alex and Paulo, Uri, and Malgosia.
>
> Something very big is afoot, which I have been briefed on. I am willing to
> discuss it in more detail with you all, but only if my discussions with
> you are kept among us. OK? It is for our joint good. The inside information
> that I have may well ultimately -- perhaps later this spring --in a big
> way, help the validation of Aetherometry. We shall see.
>
> It relates to this message now circulating:
>
> ******
> Steven Greer, M.D., will be a guest on the Coast to
> Coast radio show hosted by George Noory on Thursday January 30, 2003
> from 10 pm - 11 pm Pacific time (1 am to 2 am Friday morning Eastern
> time) with an astounding announcement: He has located what appears
> to be a suitable energy device that could replace fossil fuels.
>
> George Noory recently took over for Art Bell.
> Information on local stations and listening online is available on the web
> site:
> http://www.coasttocoastam.com
> ******
>
> I urge you to record this program from a station in your areas ( I will be
> trying here), if there is one. And, hold your fire -- despite Paulo's and
> Alex's great misgivings about Greer and Loder. The information appears to
> have excellent validation and it smells greatly of aether physics. It looks
> as though someone else, completely independently, may have found a novel
> way around the problem of tapping aether energy.
>
> Now I must turn my thoughts again to our Bose meeting tomorrow
>
> - All best, Gene

Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 19:46:46 -0800
Subject: Re: CONFIDENTIAL communication
From: Eugene F. Mallove
To: Paulo and Alexandra Correa, Malgosia Askanas, Uri Soudak

Dear Alex and Paulo,

> Dear Gene,
>
> Fine with us - it will not transpire any further (as usual, with us).

Here is the story, as related to me personally by Loder and confirmed in it particulars by e-mails from Greer. All this has come to my attention in the last two days only -- though I had known from Ted, when the photos return matter had come up, that they would be traveling abroad.

Steve, Ted, and another board member of SEAS visited an inventor with whom they had been in discussions for about 6 months. During this period, they saw many other people too, but had not found a situation that met with their original requirements, they said. The new inventor's name has not been revealed to me, though I know the off- shore country in which he currently resides. (Let me keep that out of the record, for now.) The country is in Caribbean area (NOT Panama, by the way!). The inventor is an ex-patriot from Canada, no less -- you can no doubt relate to that!

The device is very small -- weighs no more than 10-20 pounds and they could see everything within the tangle of wires and other electronics -- and a rotary component assembly within. (No arcs and sparks visible, by the way.) They were allowed to examine its interior without restriction. They were allowed to carry it. They tested it both inside the dwelling and outside the dwelling for periods of a half-hour of continuous operation or more -- just became boring to see it run and run and run with no diminution. It put out very large wattage of electricity -- hundreds of watts. The output has been arranged by the inventor to be 60Hz, 110-120V. They plugged in many power consuming devices into he unit all at once -- several 100 watt light bulbs, a 300 watt bulb, a stereo system, an electric fan. They checked the output with a Fluke 190 Series Scope Meter that we had let Loder borrow for a week (that is when he dropped off the photos to us). The output was indeed 110-120 V area at 60Hz, they say.

Now, input: Almost nothing! One input device that they did tell me about for sure was a battery (characteristics unknown, but a small battery). Their test revealed a power consumption of far under 1 watt. Now *another kind of input*, which was not revealed to me for some reasons of confidentiality at this point, were two wires leading to a "source" -- the source was not revealed. When the tips of these source wires were checked for voltage, it was in millivolts. However, when I queried Loder on his visit this afternoon to return the scope, his smile and body language revealed that it might have been the ground -- literally the soil. BUT -- -- it was not told to me what this is. I queried as to whether it was body of water: response was "no" -- but he then said, "this will be tried." The inventor would like to make further adjustments, Loder said, such that it runs on only a few AA batteries. This can be done probably within a month or so, they said.

Here is my perspective: Loder and Greer have no reason to bullshit me with a false story. So, I accept that the description of the device and the testing is roughly what they say it was. They know very well that I will not accept it beyond this unless I have proof first hand myself. Loder told me that Steve was going to go on the Art Bell show (Bell is retired, Noory is the host). And, indeed, the announcement has appeared.

IF they saw what they said they saw, it is a quite remarkable performance. Of course, there is always the prospect of fraud, misinterpretation etc. I cannot judge whether that may be involved. I am sure that Greer would not *knowingly* make such a splash on national radio about this if he himself were not convinced about it.

What do they intend to do with it? Simple: They are going to file patents -- none have been field so far; they are going to have the inventor make multiples of the device ( at least five units). These will be tested and examined by several notable scientists/technologists, to see if they are willing to go on record that it is for real. I assume they will make other business arrangements -- they have contacts at some very high levels of finance (people around Ted Turner as an example). When everything is ready for going public, they will make a public announcement. It appears that this will be sometime this spring, if their plans do not meet any roadblocks.

They are smart enough to know that if this is real (with them it is no longer IF), then it must be vacuum energy. And, I have beat on them enough against ZPE so I doubt whether they accept that ZPE explanation any longer.

So, where doe that leave us? I know you probably think it is nonsense and there is something rotten about it, but let us stand back. If this is a fraud, it is just one more fraud -- higher profile, perhaps, but just one more. If it is not.... As far as I am concerned, IF this really does come out and is done with the high profile that could easily occur, if it is desired --right in the middle of the Iraq war, no doubt! --then they will create quite a stir (understatement).

It would then be imperative for the phenomenon to be explained: Who could explain it? Obviously not "cold fusion/LENR" obviously not "hydrinos." Well, Bearden would try to put his color on it, and every two-bit theorizer would too. BUT -- who in the world just happens to have a complete theory of how it should work, as well as other technologies that tap the aether too..I think I know these dear people, whose theory and technologies -- medical an otherwise -- would take on great global interest, indeed.

Ok, OK, you don't like any of this and you do not believe it is for real. Perhaps it is not real. All we can do is stay put and see what happens.

By the way, even with all this, Loder expressed continued admiration for your work. He and Greer respect you -- and me -- there will be a "place at the table" if it is desired, down the road, when all this is sorted out -- if it ever is.

The inventor by the way, has been working on this for seven years, but has been interested in it all his life. He want no notoriety or acclaim. He wants his name kept out of it. In the past, he took one such device to Quebec Hydro -- QH told him that it was "impossible." We've seen that before.

That's all I know.

Best, Gene

Again, I trust all of you will keep this information, this e-mail, etc. within our group, till further notice.

Subject: Re: CONFIDENTIAL communication
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 15:56:15 -0500
From: Paulo and Alexandra Correa
To: Eugene F. Mallove, Uri Soudak, Malgosia Askanas

Dear Gene and Uri,

It's apparent from your letter, Gene, that you are very excited with this news, and are predisposed to believe its credibility - and IF it were to be true, then it would, of course, be very good news indeed. But the problem is, we have no trust whatsoever in either the competence of the 'examiners' nor the integrity of the source - Greer and Loder. Much worse, we have seen nothing from them - neither on the SEAS website nor in person - that would inspire anything but mistrust. Between Greer's rampant paranoia and Ted's will to believe - 'let the devil come and choose'.

We did hear the entire broadcast last night. It was vintage Greer - of course. The same line we heard here, but now, miraculously, with the gadget to plug into it. Lots of hype and hyperbole but no more 'information' than the scant pieces he also gave to you, Gene - in advance of the broadcast - which, as it stands, can only inspire more skepticism than anything else.

You said, Gene -

>Here is my perspective: Loder and Greer have no reason to bullshit me with
>a false story.

Well, we, in fact, couldn't agree less with this statement, Gene - for we have seen nothing but bullshit from these two. From Greer's hallucinating stories of meeting up with aliens in the desert, to his levitation adventures, to his empty promises of funds which, in fact, he does not have at his disposal - pure, unadulterated bullshit. But Greer is also a fairly astute publicity man. So, we doubt the lesson of the Raelians went unnoticed by him. After all, in the end, whether they have actually cloned anything is small potatoes next to the the publicity their cult has harvested with all the news reports - not to mention the flood of recruits and money that have followed from individuals desperate to reproduce themselves. Yes, Greer was very careful to cover his backside by repeating that it was 'too early' to be announcing something he had no proof for, and that he had been advised not to do so - so he has left himself what he deems to be sufficient wiggle-room to backtrack. But in the meantime, just as in the Tilley fiasco with his Nashville speedway ruse (remember how we called that one right, well before anybody mentioned it?), money pours in - in the hope that it 'might be real'. Of paramount importance is to appear to have something. And once again, any serious research is shoved onto the back burner while everyone is led to fun salivating over the holy grail gadget which is always just about to materialize.

>I am sure that Greer would not *knowingly* make such a splash on
>national radio about this if he himself were not convinced about it.

We are not so sure. He did it in such a way that he that he thinks he can easily back off from it. From our perspective, it was impossible to miss the deliberate 'digs' Greer made sure to direct to us. The two references he took specific pains to emphasize - of having been shown many overunity devices NONE OF WHICH, HE CLAIMED, PRODUCED ANY USABLE ELECTRIC OUT PUT. What bullshit, Gene. What else would be easier than connecting an alternator to the charge pack, if the objective was to generate 60Hz AC? And what could be easier than our method of obtaining excess DC electricity which is directly stored in those charge packs? After all, SEAS website specifically asks for a simple DC in and out set-up (see the quote from their webpage we sent in our response to them!). This not to mention the Aether Motor that they were not interested in. And then there was Greer's mocking of 'certain inventors' who want $15M to develop their technology. Why $15M? We cannot help but wonder if this is not either a cheap trick to attempt to goad us into revising our position towards SEAS or, at least, to muddy the waters with respect to our and your efforts. Please remember also that this is the same organization that, in its webpage, thanks Bedini for his free offer of technology and know-how which was promoted to yield free-energy results sometime last year (which never happened) - not to mention Bearden's MEG (for which Bearden wanted $22M). And it is the same organization that, even though Loder dismissed Bob Lazar explicitly as a con to Alex, has a link to the same Lazar's website...

Having just read Loder's recent ridiculous paper on advanced propulsion systems and knowing how very little he knows of what Greer purports he (Loder) is competent to test for (with your borrowed meter no less!) - it did not escape us that while Greer presented Ted as a professor at the University of New Hampshire - he did not mention, a professor of what. He is not even a biophysicist!! Nor have we forgotten Ted's story at dinner when he confessed that though he had 'seen' Greer's aliens in the desert, he had, actually, not seen them. In fact, Greer and his girlfriend 'saw' them and so, in retrospect, he must have seen them too...

No, Gene. If there is anything to all of this - it will be an extraordinary stroke of the blind luck of fools. Barely two months after Greer and Loder were up here...In our view, unless and until there is concrete information on the table, which we very much doubt will be forthcoming, it should be treated as simply another stunt by the Greer camp - the damage from which we should attempt to minimize by refraining from providing it any further coverage, and pressing forward with our own plans. (...)

Best,

Alex & Paulo

Subject: Re: CONFIDENTIAL communication
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 20:30:13 -0800
From: Eugene F. Mallove
To: Paulo and Alexandra Correa, Uri Soudak, Malgosia Askanas

On 1/31/03 12:56 PM, Paulo and Alexandra Correa wrote:

(...)
> We look forward to hearing your report on the Bose meeting.
>
> Best,
>
> Alex & Paulo

Dear Alex and Paulo, Malgosia, and Uri,

I am home late, very tired after much travel and distress of a -- mostly so far -- unsuccessful mission to Bose. I'll give you particulars later -- tomorrow morning. I did not hear Greer's radio program last night and I see, read quickly all your assessments, which I see are quite negative. I'll reply to them when my energy is back - - tomorrow a.m. may be best. A great press of business tomorrow too :(

I got back to the office to hear messages about my father's -- temporary I hope -- turn for the worse. Then had to listen to issues concerning the matter of the "do not resuscitate orders" -- should they be engaged or not and under what circumstances. This, the pressure of the impending move and many other matter have put my mood down. Please understand.

All best,

Gene

Date: Sat, 01 Feb 2003 09:52:28 -0800
Subject: Re: CONFIDENTIAL communication
From: Eugene F. Mallove
To: Paulo and Alexandra Correa

Dear All,

(...)
Let me assure you in what follows: I will do NOTHING to in any way sidetrack efforts to achieve funding for our joint efforts, just because of this new Greer claim. For three reasons: 1. I take very seriously our BOND of commitment to our joint success 2. The claim may indeed be bogus and 3. Even if it were NOT bogus, we must still continue our efforts to straighten out physics and apply our own Correa science and technologies to straighten out grotesque misconceptions -- and to extend corrections to science into the life processes area. This Mr. X inventor, even if he "has the goods" has no ability in such matters, whatsoever. He would have been just clever and lucky.
(...)
Now onto the other matter -- Greer et al.

> Dear Gene and Uri,
> It's apparent from your letter, Gene, that you are very excited with this
> news, and are predisposed to believe its credibility

More accurately, I am predisposed to believe in its POSSIBILITY -- thanks to what I know of YOUR work.

The issue of "credibility" of this specific claim is the point at issue. I believe what is being described, is being described honestly (on this we disagree since you believe Greer/Loder has an actual direct *intent* to harm you, whereas I do not believe that is the case at all. I assess the "credibility" of the specific claim from the perspective of G&T's: 1. Actual descriptions and 2. Their emotive qualities in their descriptions reactions. With that said, the claim could still be utterly false, but if it is false, it comes from fraud on the inventor's part, not from Greer or Loder, who would then be the dupes

> - and IF it were to be
> true, then it would, of course, be very good news indeed.

I do hope that you feel this sincerely, even though it would in point of fact be somewhat of a leap ahead of what you have achieved.

> But the problem
> is, we have no trust whatsoever in either the competence of the 'examiners'
> nor the integrity of the source - Greer and Loder.

I understand this is your perspective. I will try to put MY differing perspective forth, while respecting you sincere misgivings.

> Much worse, we have seen
> nothing from them - neither on the SEAS website nor in person - that would
> inspire anything but mistrust. Between Greer's rampant paranoia and Ted's
> will to believe - 'let the devil come and choose'.
> We did hear the entire broadcast last night. It was vintage Greer - of
> course. The same line we heard here, but now, miraculously, with the gadget
> to plug into it.

He had made a terrible mistake once before in the past -- with a claim on the Art Bell show (when Bell was there) of something "almost in hand." This we saved him from afterwards -- this was the infamous FRAUD perpetrated by Roy Shelton and other fraudsters -- the stealing of the Newman idea and actually getting a patent on it!. We determined that Shelton was a fraud and those around him were frauds on frauds! Greer was grateful to us for that. He immediately quit as CEO of this EMEC company that had been set up for that device -- this was around 1999-2000.

> Lots of hype and hyperbole but no more 'information' than
> the scant pieces he also gave to you, Gene - in advance of the broadcast -
> which, as it stands, can only inspire more skepticism than anything else.

His only point on going on to the show, Loder told me, was to add some level of "security by disclosure."

(...)
> But in the meantime, just as in
> the Tilley fiasco with his Nashville speedway ruse (remember how we called
> that one right, well before anybody mentioned it?), money pours in - in the
> hope that it 'might be real'.

This claim is quite different. In the case of Tilley, there was no independent examination of even what was in the "black box." In this case, there is a very light -- 10 to 20- open non-black box that is entirely open, as it has been represented by Greer and Loder. When attached to a small battery, it (is said to) powers without diminution over long periods -- in this case of hundreds of watts output for 30 minutes-plus -- is long.
(...)
Greer is not a complex man and he does not truly grasp what you have. He wants something that literally can be plugged into existing power systems, and this alleged device apparently can be -- it is robust already.
(...)
> And then there was Greer's
> mocking of 'certain inventors' who want $15M to develop their technology.
> Why $15M? We cannot help but wonder if this is not either a cheap trick to
> attempt to goad us into revising our position towards SEAS or, at least, to
> muddy the waters with respect to our and your efforts.

(...) I do not deny that the $15 million remark referred to you -- it probably did, though I have not heard the tone with which it was said.
(...)

> Nor have we forgotten Ted's story at dinner
> when he confessed that though he had 'seen' Greer's aliens in the desert, he
> had, actually, not seen them. In fact, Greer and his girlfriend 'saw' them
> and so, in retrospect, he must have seen them too...

Yes, I recall that.
(...)
> Barely two months after Greer and Loder
> were up here...In our view, unless and until there is concrete information
> on the table, which we very much doubt will be forthcoming, it should be
> treated as simply another stunt by the Greer camp - the damage from which we
> should attempt to minimize by refraining from providing it any further
> coverage, and pressing forward with our own plans.

Indeed, we will press forward with our own plans, as I have stated above. I will be mentioning the claim in a future IE, but not high profile and with no assertion at all about its likelihood of being real (unless more information of a concrete nature is provided -- i.e. I am allowed to examine and test it myself with my own methodology -- not a prospect at this time, I have not even asked, but it could be offered). Just that the claim was made and no evidence as yet put forth for it. -- a piece of news about claims being made.

>> OK, OK, you don't like any of this and you do not believe it is for real.
>> Perhaps it is not real. All we can do is stay put and see what happens.

> Yes. We think it would be most unwise to provide it any support at this
> point.

Agreed!
(...)
> But we do believe that no one currently has
> probed this field as deeply as we -

Of that I am 100% sure. No, 1,000% sure! All I am suggesting in any of this is the realistic possibility that a serendipitous empirical discovery could be made. Yes?
(...)

Best, Gene

Subject: Re: CONFIDENTIAL communication
Date: Sat, 01 Feb 2003 19:51:39 -0500
From: Paulo and Alexandra Correa
To: Eugene F. Mallove, Uri Soudak, Malgosia Askanas

Dear Gene,

(...)
The question of honesty is linked to both whether one lies to oneself and to others. We believe that Greer does both. We certainly do not by any stretch believe many of the stories he told us, nor his disingenuous sincerity when recounting them. That is not a judgement but what we see or intuit in his body language and his energy flow - which is that of a paranoiac.

> I assess the
> "credibility" of the specific claim from the perspective of G&T's: 1. Actual
> descriptions and 2. Their emotive qualities in their descriptions reactions.
> With that said, the claim could still be utterly false, but if it is false,
> it comes from fraud on the inventor's part, not from Greer or Loder, who
> would then be the dupes

Definitely this is one of the possibilities - funnily enough, in our minds, it weighs as much as the other one, some dishonesty to keep the faith going and getting back at us (which, by the way, does not mean there is an intent to harm, but rather, is a common negotiating stance which we have experienced in the past, from OH, from Reed Huish, from Egely and his sponsor, etc). Harm is always relative - and it certainly is a great deal of what makes the world go around.

> > - and IF it were to be
> > true, then it would, of course, be very good news indeed.
>
> I do hope that you feel this sincerely, even though it would in point of
> fact be somewhat of a leap ahead of what you have achieved.

Gene - this would indeed be fine with us. BUT, in our view, only the US government would have been able to achieve it - because of the technology required - or better, because of the advanced nature of the technological developments it would require; these would not be possible without the thread of a novel methodology, and yet they would apply to everything - the inductive couplings, the frequency tuning, new semiconductors, superconductive elements, etc. Please take this from us - if they cannot fly other than by the use of flying bombs as the latest Colombia shuttle disaster once more proves nearly two decades later after the Challenger episode - none of these developments have yet occurred. Neither in Area 51, nor in Hangar 18, nor because some mythical UFO crashed in Roswell. A 'fool' with no new theoretical knowledge would never reach these heights by serendipity. The limits of the latter are only too material.

> > But the problem
> > is, we have no trust whatsoever in either the competence of the 'examiners'
> > nor the integrity of the source - Greer and Loder.
>
> I understand this is your perspective. I will try to put MY differing
> perspective forth, while respecting you sincere misgivings.
>
> > Much worse, we have seen
> > nothing from them - neither on the SEAS website nor in person - that would
> > inspire anything but mistrust. Between Greer's rampant paranoia and Ted's
> > will to believe - 'let the devil come and choose'.
> >
> > We did hear the entire broadcast last night. It was vintage Greer - of
> > course. The same line we heard here, but now, miraculously, with the gadget
> > to plug into it.
>
> He had made a terrible mistake once before in the past -- with a claim on
> the Art Bell show (when Bell was there) of something "almost in hand." This
> we saved him from afterwards -- this was the infamous FRAUD perpetrated by
> Roy Shelton and other fraudsters -- the stealing of the Newman idea and
> actually getting a patent on it!. We determined that Shelton was a fraud and
> those around him were frauds on frauds! Greer was grateful to us for that.
> He immediately quit as CEO of this EMEC company that had been set up for
> that device -- this was around 1999-2000.

This is most amusing, because we remembered some of these facts you mention, and what came to our minds was precisely a device along the lines of Newman, or a huckster like Shelton (which, by the way, back then, was employed in various circles, and even by Carrell, to dilute our position, once again...).

> > Lots of hype and hyperbole but no more 'information' than
> > the scant pieces he also gave to you, Gene - in advance of the broadcast -
> > which, as it stands, can only inspire more skepticism than anything else.
>
> His only point on going on to the show, Loder told me, was to add some level
> of "security by disclosure."

Yes, he repeats that - but it is a hollow and pretentious point, in our opinion. There are no ETs in Area 51, and the US has never managed to understand, let alone control, antigravity. There is no more security in disclosing by radio than there is in being the President of the US. Everything is penetrable.

> > You said, Gene -
> >
> >> Here is my perspective: Loder and Greer have no reason to bullshit me with
> >> a false story.
> >
> > Well, we, in fact, couldn't agree less with this statement, Gene - for we
> > have seen nothing but bullshit from these two.
>
> One area of perceived bullshit, does not prove something else they see or
> check out is bullshit.

That is certainly true. But when the soul is not right, when the aims of the project are at best dubious, when the machinery is media-oriented and exploitative (2% royalties, $8K for a prototype, etc), when the lead person lies to your face, when moral and high ethics are guerrilla tactics, then, we're afraid that the whole thing is BS at best, and at worst some scheme to trap inventors. As we said before, as we see it, Greer is just a lay Firmage.

> > From Greer's hallucinating
> > stories of meeting up with aliens in the desert, to his levitation
> > adventures, to his empty promises of funds which, in fact, he does not have
> > at his disposal - pure, unadulterated bullshit.
>
> I find that even in what you may perceive as bullshit, there are serious
> questions in my mind of what they are seeing/ perceiving. For me it is a
> matter of scientific curiosity. Remember, I have known people not disposed
> to instantly accept what are seen on such Greer "outings" -- be impressed
> with what they saw -- they could not explain the aerial events.

That is another matter. But since he did not accept Paulo's exchange of gifts - even that is very dubious. After all we have witnessed ourselves very strange 'aerial evernts' and do not feel compelled to accept any, but any, of his parano propositions regarding ETs, black technology and how advanced it is.

> > But Greer is also a fairly
> > astute publicity man. So, we doubt the lesson of the Raelians went
> > unnoticed by him. After all, in the end, whether they have actually cloned
> > anything is small potatoes next to the the publicity their cult has
> > harvested with all the news reports - not to mention the flood of recruits
> > and money that have followed from individuals desperate to reproduce
> > themselves. Yes, Greer was very careful to cover his backside by repeating
> > that it was 'too early' to be announcing something he had no proof for, and
> > that he had been advised not to do so - so he has left himself what he deems
> > to be sufficient wiggle-room to backtrack.
>
> Greer has quite enough publicity and money as it stands.

Well - why then did he not have the $1M prize? Why is it he thinks that $15M is too much to develop such a technology, while at the same time he waxes poetic about the paradise-on-earth that it will usher in? These are inconsistent positions that betray an off-hand dismissal of what is obvious to us - the need for R&D to develop all the intrincacies of such systems, be they plasma-based, magnet-based (which we doubt will ever pan out) or Aether-based.

> He does not really
> need any more -- and he got far less than the Raelians out of this, of
> course, since free energy claims are a dime a dozen.
>
> > But in the meantime, just as in
> > the Tilley fiasco with his Nashville speedway ruse (remember how we called
> > that one right, well before anybody emntioned it?), money pours in - in the
> > hope that it 'might be real'.
>
> This claim is quite different. In the case of Tilley, there was no
> independent examination of even what was in the "black box." In this case,

> there is a very light -- 10 to 20- open non-black box that is entirely
> open, as it has been represented by Greer and Loder.

Let us say this - which has not been clearly stated by us but has underlayed our thoughts throughout: we are convinced that all these spurious claims (a dime a dozen) only have one result - that of reinforcing the irrational demand of people like Jed Rothwell and Park. These people want a device already finished, that you can plug into existing machines (cars, houses, appliances), which requires no new understanding of anything, and which is given on a platter to save the world. After all, God himself sacrificed his Son for our sake...

Please mark our words: none of this will happen. It will not happen with CF -and it has not; nor with anything else, for that matter. All serendipity has a context, a material, social, emotional and intellectual context. Nothing exists in a vacuum. On the contrary, what these demands for spurious ready-made gizmos that will save the world betray is a blind belief in the mystical power of technology. But here is the real harm that it commits, unconsciously and sometimes consciously (so-called capers): that it removes the very reason, the sine qua non, the ratio essendi of scientific research; that it obliterates any consideration of the need to fund R&D to bring about real devices from anomalous effects or very rudimentary principles; that, in a word, it destroys science and the scientific spirit which, after all, is the real motor of technology (whilst war is its engine). This is why we are constantly undercut in our objectives and requirements - precisely because of the destructive effect of this noise which is entirely media-propagated. In fact, Tesla's work was far more neutralized by this noise than by any supposed enemity on the part of Relativists. And it was the very same mysticism that also destroyed Reich's work.
(...)
> >> I am sure that Greer would not *knowingly* make such a splash on
> >> national radio about this if he himself were not convinced about it.
> >
> > We are not so sure.
>
> Ok, fair enough. But I disagree with your point on this. In my judgment, he
> is no mood for another EMEC affair. He was burned. It was very unpleasant.
> Therefore, if there is a fraud here, it is from the inventor. It would have
> to be a very powerful fraud, because they were able to manipulate the device
> quite freely. So

The question here is that we do not put it past Greer and Loder to be using the media to arm-wrestle us or others too - or to help gain the financial leverage to back up their search efforts.
(...)
> After their visit to Toronto, they determined that whatever their
> deep respect for your work -- and it is genuine -- the particular basis for
> an arrangement was not in hand, or so they determined. The parties had
> different time scales, interests, financial requirements, etc.

Well, the letters they wrote to you betray a small, petty spirit - and also some degree of dishonesty, since they refrained from telling us what it was they actually thought, whereas Paulo told them exactly the lay of the land - letting the chips fall where they might. Moreover, what they said in those letters was wrong, very wrong. Any genuine admiration would not take these routes.
(...)
> Greer is not a complex man and he does not truly grasp what you have. He
> want something that literally can be plugged into existing power systems,
> and this alleged device apparently can be -- it is robust already.

And our point is that he, like Tilley, and Jaskers, and a sordid pile of others like them, are doing a very real, palpable harm to the present epoch and the future of science. By the way, it is the same immediatism of the ready-made gizmo salvation that one finds at work behind the contention that the US government already has every other technology, or the contention that everybody else too has already discovered it, or that it can be simply discovered by an empirical method where chance intervenes.
(...)
>> This not to mention the
> > Aether Motor that they were not interested in.
>
> We deliberately did not show them that because of their purported
> requirements.

One of which was that we already had protection for the invention.
(...)
> We will stay clear of the damage possibilities. We will let Greer be
> damaged, if there is to be any damage. It is inadvisable, in the meantime,
> for you or me to make any public statements for or against this claim in
> public.

Excellent. But should we rule out striking at SEAS and their philosophy down the road if this turns out to be just another house of cards?
(...)

It was most curious to wake up next morning with very similar thoughts indeed.

We wish you the best,

A&P

Subject: Just an afterthought
Date: Sat, 01 Feb 2003 23:08:09 -0500
From: Paulo and Alexandra Correa
To: Eugene F. Mallove, Uri Soudak, Malgosia Askanas

Dear Gene,

Just an afterthought to add to the long list of reasons why we might all quite reasonable suspect this announcement to be a ploy by Greer...

Despite the fact we don't agree with Greer's UFO deliria - there is no question he is on his own war footing with his disclosure project. In effect, by inviting them up here to take up the challenge of the Z prize, we did, in fact, expose the fact that they - aside from not having the funding to support a full blown R&D effort for our technologies - did not even have the advertized $1M set aside for awarding the Z prize itself. It would be reasonable to assume that any war chief, knowing himself to have been exposed in such a manner and that - although none of us were making any moves to make this public - would know this to be a kind of Damocles sword hanging over him, would therefore feel compelled to go on the offensive. Recall your email -

"FW: Memo to Correa for Comment
Mon, 25 Nov 2002 18:03:19 -0800

Yes, he [Paulo] was testing you guys -- that is for sure! As it turned out, he was right about suspecting that SEAS did not have the financial means to follow through. The Correas are not looking for a fight or arguments -- they have plenty of those to deal with already, as do I, from those who have attacked cold fusion, PAGD, aether motors, etc. --publicly and viciously."

Just to keep in mind as all this goes forward... No, we had no intention of taking this further with them and we promise you we will not even contemplate it until this latest 'news' becomes clearer... But if this does turn out to be strictly a muddy the waters campaign, as we said, we think a revisiting of this issue will be in order.

Alex & Paulo

Subject: Notes on Greer
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 15:42:01 -0500
From: Malgosia Askanas
To: Eugene F. Mallove, Uri Soudak, Paulo and Alexandra Correa

Dear All,

Here are some of my thoughts on Greer's radio performance last night. The story that Greer told was exactly the one Gene reported in his email to us. Now it is of course possible that the story is true, but there are a number of aspects of it that make one wonder:

- Gene thinks that Loder and Greer have no reason to bullshit him with a false story. But don't they? It was obvious, both during and after their visit here, that they disliked Paulo's guts and were quite unhappy about Paulo's attitude and his unwillingness to be snowed by them. If what they saw and heard during their visit was in fact the most promising technology they have ever seen, they would have every reason to try and make Paulo and Alex "repent" for their intransigence. It is, therefore, perfectly reasonable that they would try to put a wrench into Gene's campaign of promoting the Correa technology and of getting funding for it elsewhere. If, for a few months, Gene and other people in the "free energy community" believed that there was this miraculous gadget just about to be released, all promotions and investment opportunities for Paulo and Alex would be put on hold; and even if, eventually, the "miracle" evaporated, restarting these promotional activities, and maintaining their credibility, would likely be even more difficult than it was to get them going initially. And as other sources dried up, Paulo and Alex would presumably have no recourse but to run back to SEAS, tail between legs.

- Coast to Coast is a peculiar venue for bringing such an announcement to the public. If the technology is real, why announce it on a show which is barely above the level of the National Enquirer? Especially when Greer claims to have such lofty connections to government, media and the Navy. It is hard not to think that this venue was chosen because it will result in a minimum damage to Greer's credibility if the "miracle" then dissolves into nothingness. He wouldn't even have to explain what happened to it; after all, people spout all kinds of nonsense on Coast to Coast.

- One cannot but be struck by the resemblance of this "invention" to Paulo and Alex's technology: it gets its power from an unknown source (which, on the show, was wantonly called "zero-point energy"), it transforms this unknown energy into electric energy, etc. At the same time, Greer chose to stress some points that sounded like they were explicitly designed to teach Paulo and Alex a lesson: the mystery inventor is perfectly happy to embrace the idea of "transparency", he is not into any kind of personal gain, he is happy to submit his device to outside testing, the device will be cheap to bring to market, it is almost ready for production. Greer even mentioned, by way of contrast, that one of the other devices he saw during his quest required as much as 15 million to commercialize.

- It may all be a coincidence, but the timing of the whole thing is very peculiar: shortly after Greer and Loder's visit here, and right in the middle of an acute crisis with Iraq.

- The "mystery inventor" doesn't have patents, and Greer said that SEAS is going to file for the patents. Yet when Greer and Loder were here, they explicitly said that SEAS has a policy of only dealing with already-patented devices. That was a major reason why he was not interested in the Aether Motor.

- The story conforms so supiciously to the American myth of "the great invention that saves the world". An unknown inventor, working in isolation, without any formal training, guided only by his "intuition", simple and trusting, following the same passion since the age of 7, and producing a simple, cheap, ready-to use device that will forever rid us us of poverty, war, hate and misery.

-m

Date: Sat, 01 Feb 2003 09:52:28 -0800
Subject: Re: Notes on Greer
From: Eugene F. Mallove
To: Malgosia Askanas, Uri Soudak, Paulo and Alexandra Correa

Dear All,

My reply to Alex and Paulo will generally suffice for a response to this appreciated assessment by Malgosia. But if there are any particular remarks necessary, I will insert them:

> Dear All,
>
> Here are some of my thoughts on Greer's radio performance last night.
> The story that Greer told was exactly the one Gene reported in his email
> to us. Now it is of course possible that the story is true,

Ah, I am glad this mathematical possibility ("the proposition is true") has been included
:)

> but there
> are a number of aspects of it that make one wonder:
>
> - Gene thinks that Loder and Greer have no reason to bullshit him with
> a false story. But don't they? It was obvious, both during and after
> their visit here, that they disliked Paulo's guts

Let us say there was not "perfect chemistry." But they do not "hate Paulo's guts" Indeed, they have subsequently had good things to say about Paulo and Alex's work. I take that as a genuine expression.

> and were
> quite unhappy about Paulo's attitude and his unwillingness to be
> snowed by them.

Yes, they were unhappy about it. True.

> If what they saw and heard during their visit was
> in fact the most promising technology they have ever seen, they would
> have every reason to try and make Paulo and Alex "repent" for their
> intransigence.

True, I agree. Unless they thought that something else they saw was easier to deal with.

> It is, therefore, perfectly reasonable that they would
> try to put a wrench into Gene's campaign of promoting the Correa
> technology and of getting funding for it elsewhere.

They are not doing that and they have not tried.

> If, for a few
> months, Gene and other people in the "free energy community" believed
> that there was this miraculous gadget just about to be released,
> all promotions and investment opportunities for Paulo and Alex would
> be put on hold;

No, this does not follow. It might even mean that it would be much easier to get funding for Paulo and Alex. It is like this: When investors realize that "Dot.com A" is a fantastic new idea, they immediately try to find "Dot.com B" that they can participate in too, or instead of A. There will be no exclusivity in the coming New Energy Age. That is my belief. Success is likely to come from multiple sources.

> and even if, eventually, the "miracle" evaporated,
> restarting these promotional activities, and maintaining their
> credibility, would likely be even more difficult than it was to
> get them going initially.

If this was their intent -- highly unlikely -- it will fail anyway, because I will not divert my efforts. I will obviously continue to probe the new claim's truth or lack thereof.

> And as other sources dried up, Paulo and
> Alex would presumably have no recourse but to run back to SEAS, tail
> between legs.

I can assure you that Greer/Loder do not at present think they need the Correa technology. They may be or are making a big mistake.

> - Coast to Coast is a peculiar venue for bringing such an announcement
> to the public.

It is a method, in Greer's mind, of imposing some level of perceived security --should any untoward event against them be contemplated in the near term.

> If the technology is real, why announce it on a show
> which is barely above the level of the National Enquirer?

Because a yesterday of people listen to that program -- not all of them are National Enquirer reader type. One of the greatest pulses of subscriptions we have ever received came when I appeared on Art Bell years ago.

> Especially
> when Greer claims to have such lofty connections to government,
> media and the Navy. It is hard not to think that this venue was
> chosen because it will result in a minimum damage to Greer's
> credibility if the "miracle" then dissolves into nothingness.
I understand your proposal, but it is not why he appeared there. IF and when he has a sold device of any kind in hand, then you can be SURE the ultimate announcement will be made in a thoroughly respectable forum. And he has said that he will make no such announcement unless he has a handful of qualified, independent scientists to back him up.

>He wouldn't even have to explain what happened to it; after all, people
> spout all kinds of nonsense on Coast to Coast.
>
> - One cannot but be struck by the resemblance of this "invention" to
> Paulo and Alex's technology: it gets its power from an unknown source
> (which, on the show, was wantonly called "zero-point energy"), it
> transforms this unknown energy into electric energy, etc.

Well, if it were real, it would be tapping the same source. Please think of THAT as a possible proposition.

> At the same time, Greer chose to stress some points that sounded like they
> were explicitly designed to teach Paulo and Alex a lesson: the
> mystery inventor is perfectly happy to embrace the idea of
> "transparency", he is not into any kind of personal gain, he is happy
> to submit his device to outside testing, the device will be cheap to
> bring to market, it is almost ready for production.

Yes, these are the claims. I cannot tell whether they are true, but I am sure that is Greer's interpretation of this inventor's statements -- and his observation of the device itself. Please, please! Do not maintain the notion that there is animus against Paulo and Alex. They have visited many other inventors, they say, who have been -- from their perspective -- very tough to deal with (probably frauds, insane people, etc. -- we have seen these too). By contrast, differences of opinion and desire aside, they view Paulo and Alex and sane, excellent scientists.

> Greer even
> mentioned, by way of contrast, that one of the other devices he saw
> during his quest required as much as 15 million to commercialize.

Yes, it is likely he was referring there to Paulo and Alex.

> - It may all be a coincidence, but the timing of the whole thing is
> very peculiar: shortly after Greer and Loder's visit here, and right
> in the middle of an acute crisis with Iraq.

Far, far too baroque an explanation. Their new "find" is an event that has been in the making for months.

> - The "mystery inventor" doesn't have patents, and Greer said that
> SEAS is going to file for the patents. Yet when Greer and Loder were
> here, they explicitly said that SEAS has a policy of only dealing with
> already-patented devices.

This is not a major issue. Filing is as good as an accepted one in Greer's view.

> That was a major reason why he was not interested in the Aether Motor. No, for him the aether motor was not at the level of power suited to his needs.

> - The story conforms so supiciously to the American myth of "the great
> invention that saves the world".

Yes, we Americans do have that myth --and actuality -- as part of our history. Edison (an uneducated man), the Wright brothers (educated, but not highly so). Goddard, highly educated, but a visionary loner.

> An unknown inventor, working in
> isolation, without any formal training, guided only by his "intuition",
> simple and trusting, following the same passion since the age of 7,
> and producing a simple, cheap, ready-to use device that will forever
> rid us us of poverty, war, hate and misery.

Well, I do not doubt that it fits this concept. We shall see if the "myth" becomes a "reality" in this case. Let us, as scientists, watch the unfolding events carefully. But let us also protect ourselves from its potential disasters -- as well as be prepared to take advantage of a changing situation should something of admitted benefit materialize.

Now back to my scurrying around --and WRITING for IE!!!

Gene

Subject: Re: Notes on Greer
Date: Sat, 01 Feb 2003 19:52:16 -0500
From: Paulo and Alexandra Correa
To: Eugene F. Mallove
CC: Malgosia Askanas, Uri Soudak

Dear Malgosia and Gene,

Just a few last thoughts on the matter:

> > - Gene thinks that Loder and Greer have no reason to bullshit him with
> > a false story. But don't they? It was obvious, both during and after
> > their visit here, that they disliked Paulo's guts
>
> Let us say there was not "perfect chemistry." But they do not "hate Paulo's
> guts" Indeed, they have subsequently had good things to say about Paulo and
> Alex's work. I take that as a genuine expression.

Since they wrote just such unfair things before, this subsequent patching over may well be taken as a possible leaving the door open, which in turn permits some of our interpretations you objected to. In the same way that we consider the possibility that all of it could be true - no matter how strongly we doubt it - you should also consider that this is a possibility that one should contemplate, especially when, just 2 months after they were here and claimed they had not seen anything like the few things we showed them, and one month after their self-imposed deadline which they waved, they came up with this miraculous find by someone, in a poor coutry, who is not a scientist, but is transparent (with no real personal interests to protect, not even patents) and ready to save Humanity. As a matter of fact, if it were not for your assertions to us - and because of our trust in your judgement and your understanding - we would almost be ready to believe it is nothing but another publicity stunt.

> > and were
> > quite unhappy about Paulo's attitude and his unwillingness to be
> > snowed by them.
>
> Yes, they were unhappy about it. True.
>
> > If what they saw and heard during their visit was
> > in fact the most promising technology they have ever seen, they would
> > have every reason to try and make Paulo and Alex "repent" for their
> > intransigence.
>
> True, I agree. Unless they thought that something else they saw was easier
> to deal with.
>
> > It is, therefore, perfectly reasonable that they would
> > try to put a wrench into Gene's campaign of promoting the Correa
> > technology and of getting funding for it elsewhere.
>
> They are not doing that and they have not tried.

The jury may well not yet be out on this one...:) At the very least, we should not underestimate them.

> > If, for a few
> > months, Gene and other people in the "free energy community" believed
> > that there was this miraculous gadget just about to be released,
> > all promotions and investment opportunities for Paulo and Alex would
> > be put on hold;
>
> No, this does not follow. It might even mean that it would be much easier
> to get funding for Paulo and Alex. It is like this: When investors realize
> that "Dot.com A" is a fantastic new idea, they immediately try to find
> "Dot.com B" that they can participate in too, or instead of A. There will
> be no exclusivity in the coming New Energy Age. That is my belief. Success
> is likely to come from multiple sources.

Insitutionally, what you say is often true - but for those outside of these institutions we think a very different law applies - which is effectively a pressure to sell it short.

> > and even if, eventually, the "miracle" evaporated,
> > restarting these promotional activities, and maintaining their
> > credibility, would likely be even more difficult than it was to
> > get them going initially.
>
> If this was their intent -- highly unlikely -- it will fail anyway, because
> I will not divert my efforts. I will obviously continue to probe the new
> claim's truth or lack thereof.

Excellent on both points.

> > And as other sources dried up, Paulo and
> > Alex would presumably have no recourse but to run back to SEAS, tail
> > between legs.
>
> I can assure you that Greer/Loder do not at present think they need the
> Correa technology. They may be or are making a big mistake.

Time will tell on these two points.

> > - Coast to Coast is a peculiar venue for bringing such an announcement
> > to the public.
>
> It is a method, in Greer's mind, of imposing some level of perceived
> security --should any untoward event against them be contemplated in the
> near term.
>
> > If the technology is real, why announce it on a show
> > which is barely above the level of the National Enquirer?
>
> Because a yesterday of people listen to that program -- not all of them are
> National Enquirer reader type. One of the greatest pulses of subscriptions
> we have ever received came when I appeared on Art Bell years ago.

It is a very poor venue, however - one where every idiocy, from Hal Lindsey (who followed Greer in the radio show) to planet X, is propagated.

> > Especially
> > when Greer claims to have such lofty connections to government,
> > media and the Navy. It is hard not to think that this venue was
> > chosen because it will result in a minimum damage to Greer's
> > credibility if the "miracle" then dissolves into nothingness.
>
> I understand your proposal, but it is not why he appeared there. IF and when
> he has a sold device of any kind in hand, then you can be SURE the ultimate
> announcement will be made in a thoroughly respectable forum. And he ahs said
> that he will make no such announcement unless he has a handful of qualified,
> independent scientists to back him up.

We're sure we will revisit this as it goes along.

> > He wouldn't even have to explain what happened to it; after all, people
> > spout all kinds of nonsense on Coast to Coast.
> >
> > - One cannot but be struck by the resemblance of this "invention" to
> > Paulo and Alex's technology: it gets its power from an unknown source
> > (which, on the show, was wantonly called "zero-point energy"), it
> > transforms this unknown energy into electric energy, etc.
>
> Well, if it were real, it would be tapping the same source. Please think of
> THAT as a possible proposition.

All of you should consider some of the more serious questions we raised in our previous post, regarding precisely this.

> > - It may all be a coincidence, but the timing of the whole thing is
> > very peculiar: shortly after Greer and Loder's visit here, and right
> > in the middle of an acute crisis with Iraq.
>
> Far, far too baroque an explanation. Their new "find" is an event that has
> been in the making for months.

Two months ago they said they had nothing - save possibly us - and now they have everything...what are the odds of such a proposition alone?? You should know, after so many years of searching high and low.

> > - The "mystery inventor" doesn't have patents, and Greer said that
> > SEAS is going to file for the patents. Yet when Greer and Loder were
> > here, they explicitly said that SEAS has a policy of only dealing with
> > already-patented devices.
>
> This is not a major issue. Filing is as good as an accepted one in Greer's view.
>
> > That was a major reason why he was not interested in the Aether Motor.
>
> No, for him the aether motor was not at the level of power suited to his needs.

That is not our recollection - but the three facts - that we did not want to be transparent on the AM or pass the technology to third parties, and had not yet obtained patent protection. Those were the three issues that moved it to the side. Power might have been discussed, but 10 to 100 w is enough to light a lamp.

> > - The story conforms so supiciously to the American myth of "the great
> > invention that saves the world".
>
> Yes, we Americans do have that myth --and actuality -- as part of our
> history. Edison (an uneducated man)

But this was the brute power of money and systematic checking of every possible angle! Not individual serendipity, but individual greed and drive mixed with access to vast institutional means!

> , the Wright brothers (educated, but not highly so).

Here too, it was not the individual that made the discovery possible, but a long chain of attempts along very similar lines that succeeded in the context of an advantage to the war machinery - even if it went through several cycles of tribulation.

> Goddard, highly educated, but a visionary loner.

Maybe that is blown up too much - after all Oberth was a much greater visionary, and Oberth's work had been promoted since the early 20's by the wealthy Fritz von Opel. Oberth's treatise was in fact the first to propose the use of liquid fuels - with their spectacular and deadly consequences. Yet, their vision of getting to the stars on rockets was and is a ridiculous one (Oberth later changed his mind and defended precisely the need for antigravitational drives). All that rocketry permitted - aside from the spectacle of the lunar missions as a peace excedent of military programs - was the development of deadlier and deadlier weapons and nuclear payloads. Not exactly something to be proud about.

> > An unknown inventor, working in
> > isolation, without any formal training, guided only by his "intuition",
> > simple and trusting, following the same passion since the age of 7,
> > and producing a simple, cheap, ready-to use device that will forever
> > rid us us of poverty, war, hate and misery.
>
> Well, I do not doubt that it fits this concept. We shall see if the "myth"
> becomes a "reality" in this case. Let us, as scientists, watch the
> unfolding events carefully. But let us also protect ourselves from its
> potential disasters -- as well as be prepared to take advantage of a
> changing situation should something of admitted benefit materialize.

We entirely concur.

> Now back to my scurrying around --and WRITING for IE!!!

We would love to read this!

A&P

Subject: Re: Notes on Greer
Date: Sun, 2 Feb 2003 21:22:29 -0800 (PST)
From: Uri Soudak
To: Eugene F. Mallove, Paulo and Alexandra Correa, Malgosia Askanas,

Dear all,
After reading all the communications on this subject and remembering your fresh reactions after their visit, I have no doubt whatsoever that they (Loader and Greer) are either dreaming, or mentally sick, or just big-time crooks. I know the joy that Gene is expressing, but you'll be very disapointed, Gene, and it distracts you from our goals.
Best to all,
uri

Subject: FW: Claimed Over-Unity Electrical Generator - Dr. Steven Greer
Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2003 21:11:42 -0800
From: Eugene F. Mallove
To: Paulo and Alexandra Correa, Uri Soudak, Malgosia Askanas

Dear All,

FYI -SEAS is now posting a transcript of the Greer program.

See: http://www.seaspower.com/transcriptcoasttocoastJan312003.htm

- Gene

------ Forwarded Message

From: Hal Ade
Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2003 16:52:01 -0500
Cc: BlackLight Power - Info, Daniel J. Cavicchio, Jr. - New Energy Partners, Infinite Energy - Editor, Jean-Louis Naudin, Science Friday , David Hamel , Laura Lee , Alternative Energy Institute, Dr. Patrick Bailey - President - Institute for New Energy, Hal Fox, Hal Plotkin, International Association for New Science, Inventors' Assoc. of Ottawa, Inventors Resource Co-operative Inc., Discovery Comments , Sterling D. Allan , Doug Littlefield, Dr. R. Mills - BlackLight Power, Planetary Association for Clean Energy, John Bedini, Canadian Action Party National Office , Ontario Liberal Party, Progressive Conservative Party of Canada , Disclosure Project , Art Bell , Pierre Ducasse , Ontario NDP, NDP Canada , Dr. Robert Adams, Lorne Nystrom, MP, Ontario Electricity Coalition, Public Power, Alex Cullen , The Council of Canadians, ZPEnergy , Greg O'Neill, Jeff Rense Program , Lou Gentile Show , Paul Kahnert , Public Power
Subject: Claimed Over-Unity Electrical Generator - Dr. Steven Greer

To all those who have a concern for the state of their electricity bill:

Below is the text of an interview on the Coast-to-Coast AM radio show, with Dr. Steven Greer, co-ordinator with an organization which investigates and otherwise manages, claims of over-unity devices, generators which are alleged to *output more energy* - usually electricity - than is input to the generator. I think it's a good interview for the "person on the street" to get an understanding of these claims.

Hal Ade
Member, Planetary Association for Clean Energy
Chair, "Keep Electricity Public",
Ottawa, ON
Member, Electric Vehicle Council of Ottawa.

http://www.seaspower.com/transcriptcoasttocoastJan312003.htm

------ End of Forwarded Message -

Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: Hoax?
Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2003 21:39:25 -0500
From: Paulo and Alexandra Correa
To: Andrew Michrowski
BCC: Eugene F. Mallove, Uri Soudak, Malgosia Askanas

Dear Andrew,

Hello, hello - I haven't heard from you in a long time!

I'll be glad to give you my simple view on the matter. There is an average, if you will, 'ZPE' in the 'vacuum-state'. This has been ascertained experimentally, but is poorly understood - as you know. Mostly because existing Physics fails to realize that massfree aether energy is not reducible to electromagnetic energy, and thus that energy exists in forms that are not electromagnetic or bound to Matter (not in 'ZPE' form). Hence, the 'vacuum-state' also contains an average value of massfree energy, in both electric and nonelectric forms. This is much greater than the actual value of the so- called ZPE of the 'vacuum-state', and - with respect to the electric state of that massfree Aether - about three times smaller (in log form) than the abstruse value provided by Wheeler in his Geometrodynamics for the virtual mass energy density of the fabric of space. (...) You or your Association should purchase our monograph AS2-17C from Akronos Publishing, where the precise physics of this process are described in great detail, and help disseminate the new knowledge of these critical matters.

Aside from these considerations, and when talking specifically about the induced response of the 'vacuum-medium' as in Aspden's Aether Spin, there is no such limit - the average energy density does not impose any limit to energy extraction from the 'vacuum-state', not in this way or in any other possible meaning of Hutchinson's silly argument (can't the fellow find enough self-esteem to learn to write?).

So, the simple answer to your question is no.

Between us, I can tell you that Hutchinson and plenty of others like him, plus all those at the NRC that have been financing like charades of research, effects and phenomena, would not know what aether energy is if it hit them in the eyes - or the mind's eye. However, we would be willing to bet that Hutchinson is right in arguing that SEAS has been, at best, duped. We warned Hal Ade about the hoax of the Tilley vehicle - though he did not listen to our admonishment; instead, some five months later, he passed around the rantings of a Sterling Allen, who is even more noxious an angler than Tilley likely is. Now, he is off to the races with the Greer announcement.

No aether energy dinner will be served free on a platter. For those of us who have been hard at work on the frontline to make sense of the entire matter and bring it to a good harbour, let me tell you that the problem is at once technological, mathematical and scientific - not to mention psychiatric or political. There are no free lunches, and those that claim the opposite are either fanatics, fools or manipulators. Always look for their hidden agendas.

I hope this helps you - and finds you in good fighting health,

Best regards,

Paulo Correa, MSc, PhD

Andrew Michrowski wrote:
>
> Is there such a limitation in energy density induction
> of zero-point energy flux as suggested by John
> Hutchison who generally succeeds in drawing 1V at
> variable milliamps with his battery-sized system?
>
> Your comments would be appreciated.
>
> Andrew Michrowski

Subject: FW: SEAS update
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2003 18:53:24 -0700
From: Eugene F. Mallove
To: Paulo and Alexandra Correa

Dear Alex and Paulo,

Greer has bombed again. I am sure you will have your strong views on this development :) I will try to find out more particulars.

All best, Gene

------ Forwarded Message

From: Steven Greer
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2003 11:05:07 EDT
To: Emily Greer
Subject: SEAS update

15 APRIL 2003

MEMO: To all SEAS Investors, Consultants, and Interested Members of the Media and Public

From: Steven M. Greer MD, CEO SEAS

RE: Update on SEAS technology acquisitions

As all of you know, SEAS identified a promising over unity technology in January of this year, and subsequently negotiated an agreement to acquire the technology. Since then, previously undisclosed business interests of the inventor have surfaced and have stopped the acquisition process. For this reason, to date we have not been able to acquire the device for further testing or reproduce its performance. We have been negotiating for 6 weeks to resolve the issues raised by these other interests, a process that has involved parties in three countries.

At this point we do not know if or when the inventor will fulfill his obligations to SEAS under the original agreement. We will let you know as soon as the technology has been submitted to us for further development and verification and the results of that process are known.

In the meanwhile, we have identified several other very promising systems, one that is generating 35KW over unity, according to the inventor. Another is a solid- state system that shows significant promise, as it would have no moving parts. The entire SEAS team is very engaged in investigating, testing and acquiring these technologies. You will be informed just as soon as confirmed tests and reproducibility studies are completed on any of these new energy systems.

Thank you for your continuing support and interest.

Steven M. Greer MD
CEO SEAS

------ End of Forwarded Message

Subject: Re: FW: SEAS update
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2003 19:31:48 -0400
From: Paulo and Alexandra Correa
To: Eugene F. Mallove

Dear Gene,

>Greer has bombed again. I am sure you will have your strong views on this
>development :) I will try to find out more particulars.

Yes, we think we already made our views quite clear on this - the shabby motives behind it were so obvious - and so this news is no surprise. For us, it was only a question of how long they would decide to hold out before retracting.

Subject: Re: News from us
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 15:43:35 -0700
From: Eugene F. Mallove
To: Paulo and Alexandra Correa, Uri Soudak, Malgosia Askanas

Dear Alex and Paulo,
(...)
Last week I sent you a package of goodies:
(...)
-- Atlantis Rising -- with news note they put in about my skepticism about Greer's latest claim
(...)

Best, Gene

Subject: Re: News from us
Date: Sat, 10 May 2003 23:15:49 -0400
From: Paulo and Alexandra Correa
To: Eugene F. Mallove
CC: Uri Soudak, Malgosia Askanas

Dear Gene,
(...)

> -- Atlantis Rising -- with news note they put in about my skepticism about
> Greer's latest claim

Yes, that was very naughty. But did they excise any parts that referred to our monographs from your essay on Tesla?

Subject: A gross imprecision
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2003 23:52:06 -0400
From: Paulo Correa
To: Thomas Valone
BCC: Eugene F. Mallove, Uri Soudak, Malgosia Askanas

Dear Tom -

In pursuit of the spirit that you agreed to at the end of our dinner in Berlin together, I am writing to you to correct a gross imprecision brought recently to my attention, in one of your articles at the SEAS website, to which you serve as consultant. This article, at location:

http://seaspower.com/FutureEnergy-Valone.htm

states:

"Other inventors that meet the future energy criteria include Dr. Deborah Chung, from the State University of N.Y. at Buffalo, who has discovered "negative" resistance in carbon fibers[10]. Another, James Griggs, the inventor of the hydrosonic pump (Pat. #5,385,298), represents an overunity "apparatus for heating fluids" which even exhibits sonoluminescence (now marketed by HydroDynamics in Rome, Georgia). Dr. Paulo Correa also qualifies with his pulsed abnormal glow discharge (PAGD) energy conversion system[11]."

"Correa, Paulo, "Excess Energy Conversion System Utilizing Autogenous Pulsed Abnormal Glow Discharge," Proceedings of COFE, p. 150 (...)"

You should also know, as a SEAS advisor, of the shortsightedness of SEAS in its failure to be serious about investing in, and considering, our technologies - beginning with that plasma technology which you think has some merit.

I appreciate your attention to this matter.

Best regards to you and your charming wife,

Paulo Correa, MSc, PhD