http://pesn.com/2005/06/28/9600117_Lutec_GMCC_Bedini_Bearden/ You are here: PureEnergySystems.com > News > June 28, 2005

What Lutec, GMCC, Bedini, and Bearden Technologies May Have in Common

Sterling Allan wonders if the key to each of these varying electromagnetic technologies is that they include permanent magnets that transiently flip in polarity when confronted with a properly pulsed coil, opening a gate to some kind of yet-to-be defined energy. Could increased synergy among inventors lead to earlier completion and marketing?

by Sterling D. Allan
Pure Energy Systems News
Copyright © 2005

Opinion

This piece might be called my "flip-flop" – from a stance of being wary of Lutec's claims (of having a free energy machine developed to commercial stage) – to a stance of being supportive of, or at least sympathetic to, their enthusiasm. It is the potential in what they are doing which spurs them to talk ahead of reality. This is an apology of sorts, as well as an invitation for inventors working on similar technology to work more closely together, in order to bring about the accomplishment of their common objective.

The turning point of my view came from reading the Lutec websites' recent update page, dated June 24, 2005, in which they describe the flip-flop of a permanent magnet's polarity as the electromagnetic coils pass by them with a superimposed magnetic field.  This is not referring to the magnets being arranged alternatively one polarity, then another.  I'm talking about one magnet (each magnet in turn) actually transiently changing its polarity -- not the physical magnet flipping.

That might sound like heresy in the academic world, but this phenomenon has been observed.  It happens.

First, let me say for the record that I do not presume to be an expert in this field, but rather, I am coming at this as a highly interested observer and reporter, with a "vested interest" in the outcome of this planet: that is, survival for my family, country and for all humanity. So bear with me as I presume to set forth some thoughts, which in this case comprise of a brief history of my involvement in the recent Lutec controversy, some armchair theorizing, and a presentation of some political solutions. I think these proposals will be helpful, not just in this particular area of study, but in other avenues of scientific endeavor as well, both energy in particular, and all technological advancement in general.


The Lutec Controversy

Lutec's June 24 update makes reference to a radio interview that took place with Dutch physicist, Jacco van der Worp, citing it as a qualified assessment of the validity and viability of their Lutec 1000 technology.

Inasmuch as I am specifically named (libelously) several times in the interview as a vociferous and even malicious antagonist of Lutec, I feel I need to issue a rebuttal. The interviewer, Marshall Masters, went so far as to claim that I am in the employ of sinister oil interests intent on killing the Lutec technology. Most of you who know me will laugh upon hearing that, as I am about as opposite that caricature as one might be.

The written introduction to the interview found on Master's Yowusa.com website also accuses me of having breached a promise made to Masters.  That is simply not the case.  The agreement was not clearly communicated.  I did carry out what I had understood to be within my right.  I certainly did not promise that, no matter what, my story would be favorable to Lutec.  That is not journalism.

I responded the other day (June 24), indirectly, by finally completing a story I'd been sitting on for nearly three months following an interview I conducted with Lutec inventor Lou Brits on April 3, 2005. I had also given a radio interview on April 3, in which I reported on my take on things at that point.

In short, in the interview and in the story, I said that the Lutec home page statement seems unwarranted, in that they make the claim, "The Lutec 1000 is the first free energy machine to be developed to commercial stage anywhere in the world." It is not the first free energy machine; solar and wind power have been tapped freely for centuries. The company has not yet presented enough evidence, that we can see, to support their claim that Lutec 1000 is a free-energy machine in the first place. Secondly, and contrary to their statement, it is not yet at commercial stage, as they are still involved in research and development.

Therefore, what I questioned was not the concept of the device, but the integrity of a company that would allow claims of exclusivity and completeness to remain for so long on its home page, despite the lack of substantiation for their statement.

Two factors spurred me to write a more direct response to the Masters and van der Worp interview, of which a recording that slanders my name numerous times remains accessible on the internet. First, that fellow free-energy news service, ZPEnergy, posted a link to the Lutec updates page, which page links to and comments on the Masters / van der Worp interview. Many people who subscribe to our FreeEnergyNews.com daily news, also check up on ZPEnergy, and would thus be directed to that interview.

Second, there are some interesting points made in the Lutec updates page that I wished to send FreeEnergyNews.com readers to, but I didn't want to do so without providing a response to the libelous comments about myself.

Along the lines of interest, the updates page makes some new disclosures about how the Lutec 1000 operates.  It also makes references to verifications that have been accomplished but which cannot be specified due to commercial confidentiality agreements.  It also makes note of some of the business/university politics that have been put into effect.

As I commenced composing this rebuttal, I was focusing on documenting the discrepancy between what the physicist van der Worp said, and how Lutec then interpreted his statements. This physicist stated flat out that this was not an over unity machine, nor is it a free energy machine, which contradicts what is claimed on the home page of the Lutec site. I went to the audio of the interview and transcribed the pertinent segment to document this apparent conceptual gap. Yet, contradicting himself, the physicist did refer to the Lutec as a device that could provide supplemental power as a generator. If it is merely efficiently converting existing power with minimal losses, how could it serve as a generator to supply extra energy?

However, my critical mode was soon shifted to one of "eureka."


Eureka and Flip-Flop

As I was scrutinizing the update statement on the Lutec site, a light went on in my head as I read their summary of how their device works, as described in the first paragraph. The connections between dots that resulted softened my attitude toward Lutec, spurring me to change the tone of my response to this more conciliatory one.

To their credit, it looks to me that Lutec may be doing very close to the same thing that the GMC Holdings Group (GMCC) is doing in Florida with their REMAT™ device, which has strong similarities to the work of John Bedini, whose work has some overlap with that of Tom Bearden -- individuals that I hold in high regard.  That is why I softened toward Lutec.  I could see by their description that they are indeed on to something.

In this regard, the charge laid against me by Masters – that I was hasty in my conclusion and "shooting from the hip" in responding negatively based on limited information – is warranted. I do not dispute that characterization, recognizing it as a weakness of mine.  Also, let me say again that I am not a professional in my understanding of any of these systems, but am merely making observations from my limited perspective.

That is one of the reasons I am grateful for a growing news organization through my association with the Open Source Energy Network (OSEN).  By having more heads involved in thinking and writing about something, the chances for oversight and error diminish.  There were six people intimately involved in composing our latest story published at PESN regarding Naudin's MAHG breakthrough.  I think we did a great job on that piece.  So did JL Naudin, per the compliment he gave us.

Here is the opening paragraph statement on the Lutec update page that captured my interest and illumined a light bulb in my mind:

    "...The controlled periodic interruption of a rotating permanent magnetic field, by the temporary and precise introduction of another magnetic field, causes the secondary effect of the naturally occurring polarity flip of the permanent magnet influence, to be accessed, harnessed, and applied to assist in the rotors on-going revolution direction. ...This flip effect is influenced by voltage rather than current, and also allows the flip back to the original polarity to naturally occur at no cost of current, so the rotor is driven onwards at a very small cost of electricity."

What they appear to be saying is that their systematic pumping of the coil – in juxtaposition to the permanent magnet as they pass one another – causes the magnet intermittently to reverse polarity, and then flip back to its normal polarity.

Ironically, my flip-flop in my stance toward Lutec was spurred by reading about the magnet flip-flop.


The Crux

What occurs to me as a probable mode of action, is that this flip-flop of the permanent magnet's polarity is where the "magic" is found.  That is where the "free energy" is harnessed -- in the opening and closing of that gate to the universe, so to speak.  Whether the energy is inherent in the magnet, like a near infinite battery, or whether this flip-flop action pulls in some kind of universal, inexhaustible magnetic-field energy property from outside of the magnets, is a matter to be answered by qualified theorists.

It is this concept that spurred me to shift the tone and scope of this article.  I'm basically just tossing this into the ring in a spirit of "try this one on for size."  It rings deeply true to me, but what do I know?  This falls into the "for what it's worth" department.

I must give credit to Wes Crosiar for having emphasized to me the importance of this magnet flip-flop in the equation, so that I could have this "aha" moment.  John Bedini also discussed this concept with me, and concurred that he believes that this is what is happening in his systems.

I'm not as familiar with the work of Tom Bearden and his Motionless Electromagnetic Generator (MEG).  But based on my personal observation of a solid state (no moving parts) resonance occurrence range in my replication of Bedini's device, and based on the tight scientific friendship between Bedini and Bearden, I can't help but guess that this magnet flip-flop could also be a key in its operation.  I could be wrong.  That's okay.  I'm just saying, "what if."


The Race is On

In some regards, the four parties named (and I'm sure there are others, such as Faraday Labs in Russia) are neck-in-neck with each other in achieving the primary objective of getting a device into the marketplace where it can begin making a difference in curtailing our dependence on oil.

A breaking story sitting in our hopper right now is that GMCC announced on June 27 that they have a production prototype ready to go.  (see story)  I spoke with Billy Windsor yesterday, who says they are presently having a UL-certified manufacturer make two copies: one for investors and one to be displayed, continuously running, live on their website. After those two are completed and tested, production will begin. The device is expected to be available in civilian applications attached to other devices within 180 days.

Windsor phoned me today to let me know that their device works on a "push-push" paradigm, not the flip-flop mentioned here.  I will be learning more about that in the next few hours and days as I prepare that story for publication, including speaking with their engineer.  Still, at this point, I can't help but think that even though they might not realize it, this polarity flipping may be what is happening with their magnets, and that is why they are getting the over-unity effects they are seeing.

Lutec is not far behind, being very close to taking this same step of production prototyping, though they are still working through some stability issues.  From what I understand, they only have one prototype, which they don't dare dismantle, as they have not yet been able to replicate it.  GMCC says they have two stable prototypes now.

I wonder, however, whether GMCC might be getting a bit ahead of themselves too.  Windsor told me yesterday that the longest they've had their prototype running continuously has been a little over 24 hours.  I would think that before sending a prototype to be replicated for UL approval, they should test the prototype for much, much longer than 24 hours, under a wide variety of stresses, to catch any remaining bugs that are likely to manifest.  Leaving out this beta-testing phase makes going to production more risky. I hope this will not turn out to have been a premature step that could prove to be an unnecessarily expensive one. One step forward, two steps back? (After composing this, I spoke with Windsor, who said there are things going on that he is not at liberty to disclose, in terms of how far along they are.)

I'm not sure how far along Bedini and Lindemann are in their prototyping.  They are a very productive and synergistic team, and are likely to nail down a stable prototype sometime soon, if they haven't already.

Bearden, who has produced some transient prototypes, if I understand correctly, is presently stymied by lack of adequate funding, as is Lutec.


Cutting Lutec some Slack for Inventor Optimism

That said, let me bring this back to the controversy about what I consider to be a discrepancy between what Lutec actually has accomplished so far versus what they state on their website. What I questioned was the integrity factor, and only because that apparent contradiction has persisted for more than three years.

First of all, I can relate to the inventor's optimism. This is a human psychological phenomenon that says, "We have it figured out, and will nail it with just this one little change that should only take us a couple of weeks." Then something else comes up that has to be overcome. The date of accomplishment is never very far away, just a few days, or weeks, or months away -- it is close; oh so close! And when they are about to give up at times, something comes along to renew the hope, and off they go again on the quest. Even if it causes them to be overly optimistic, this hope of resolving the problems is a vital factor driving engineers and researchers to continue working when others would give up.

That inventor's optimism can clash seriously with the investors' intrinsic and necessary pragmatism.  They hear an inventor's optimistic forecast, and when they the product is not delivered on schedule time and again, their patience grows thin and the money may be withdrawn.

Now that I can see more clearly how Lutec's core concept and technology is related to these others, some of which I am more familiar with, and which I believe are legitimate approaches, I am willing to cut them some slack.  I now have a reason to give them the credibility that they probably have deserved all along, but which they have not been able to convey through their site.  I hope they will forgive me and understand why I would be cautious and skeptical when I was seeing several red flags.

Their forward-looking statements reflect the optimism they feel, even though the reality has yet to match their optimism -- but it is close, oh so close -- and it has been for more than three years.


Other Manifestations of the Phenomenon

Paul Pantone of GEET is perhaps the best illustration of this inventor optimism phenomenon.  Every time I talk to him, there is some new fantastic development that is going to happen in a few days, and I will be the first to hear about it; but I never do hear because it never does happen -- at least not yet.  That is not because he's a liar.  It doesn't mean that at all.  It's because he's an inventor, with his head up in the clouds of inventor optimism, holding true to his hope.  I am saying that with a smile on my face and with respect, as well as a touch of resignation, realizing yet again the patience needed to look past inventor quirkiness.

The same gap between hope and immediate reality holds true of the multi-million dollar grant that was promised to PES Network Inc. For more than one and a half years, this funding has been half a month to a month away. Presently, it is expected to materialize half way through July of 2005.


How About More Teamwork?

Another thing about inventors is that even though they are able to come up with things that work, ironically, seldom do they know why their contraptions work, just that they do.  I'm guessing that the gift of understanding why comes packaged in another person outside of the inventor.

We are meant to work together as a human family.  All gifts are not bestowed on one person who would get to have all the fun all by him/herself.  It is in the teamwork that true progress is made.

That is one of the reasons why we at PES Network Inc (in process of merging with the Open Source Energy Network) promote open sourcing. To help propel an idea forward, we can bounce it among a wider number of gifted and informed people with a strong interest in that subject.  Not all projects are suited for open sourcing, but some are ideal for development within a loose collegiality.

I think we can say as an axiom that the extent to which people get greedy and seek to hoard the windfall that might come of their dream invention, is the extent to which they inhibit achieving the ideal technology. It seems that human beings are hard wired with this tendency; it may be part of a self-preservation instinct.  Many companies have succeeded despite some serious greed.  I'm just wondering how much better things could be if there was more cooperation and less competition.

What would happen if GMCC, Lutec, Bedini Technologies Inc, and Bearden were to work even more closely together that some of them already are, rather than as competitors? Would this be the “critical mass” that would get the project over the top?

Doing this takes faith and trust.  Faith, because each of the individuals in these companies has put forward a great deal of effort through their lives to get to this point, and feel like they deserve the benefits that should come from their efforts when they finally reach fruition.  By working together, now the individual inventor might not be as much in the limelight, but shares that limelight with others.  It is their quest for the higher good that enables them to set aside the human need for platitudes and settle for the good feeling that comes from knowing they have made a difference.  Of such selflessness are heroes forged.  John Bedini and Tom Bearden's open sharing of their technology is a shining example of such magnanimity.  While they are not giving away the rights to commercial interests, they have been most helpful in enabling others interested in experimental replication of their work.

Trust is required, because the fear is that one of the group could sell-out and walk away with a large pot, while the rest are left empty-handed or nearly so.  Such trust cannot be awarded without being deserved, continually.  Gaining that level of trust does not come easy, and to the extent that some of these parties have already established that with one another is to be commended.

Achieving such cooperation in this age of "Survivor" mentality, in which the weak are voted off the Island, and only one can win the prize, is no small feat.  That is a cultural factor being introduced and promoted contrary to all our highest spiritual and moral traditions. And that winner-takes-all, losers-get-nothing mentality is what holds the oil cartel in place.  This dog-eat-dog, king-of-the-mountain competitive, controlling spirit, is the antithesis of the cooperative spirit, which requires a higher level of obedience to the soul.

Considering the need in our society to move away from its negative , self-destructive programming, to a higher, sustainable paradigm, I can't help but think that a radical new-energy paradigm can only be launched through a radical new business approach that is much higher in cooperation than in competition.

Maybe GMCC has one piece of the puzzle, Lutec another, Bedini another, and Bearden the other (and there could be others as well); and only by coming together will they solve the riddle in short order.  Otherwise, the weeks will continue to turn into years.

We'll see.


Whose Idea is it Anyway?

Finally, if you could bear with me a little longer, another concept occurred to me that supports the notion of increased inventor cooperation being a worthwhile ideal.

There is a strong analogy between some religious principles and this inventor principle.

When an inventor receives an idea, it is like "personal revelation" in the religious terminology.  There is a sense of ownership.  Even though there are others who may have had a similar insight, it feels as if you understand it better than anyone else.  There is a freshness and vitality to it.

In the era that we're in now, the status quo is for those who have ideas to fight over who gets public credit for having had the idea first.  That really is quite silly, because more often than not, "God" is the one who planted the idea in their heads in the first place.

Most key developments seem to occur to multiple people in approximately the same time period.  This is a kind of divine redundancy, as if given in hopes that at least one of them will bring the idea to fulfillment. It's not "theirs" exclusively, but is intended to be given to all humanity. Those who received the idea first are just the instrument in bringing it forward, just as others are instrumental in the infinite other facets of life which brought that inventor into being in the time, context and space to receive and comprehend the "new" idea. Parents, school teachers, books, friends, experiences of nature, even a mailman delivering a package or advertisement, and many other factors too numerous to mention could have helped the person learn the rudiments leading to the discovery.

Certainly those who are entrusted with an idea, are also obliged to protect the idea as necessary to see it brought successfully to fruition.  A stewardship, which is a sister of ownership, is certainly appropriate.

In composing this piece and seeking some preliminary feedback, I've received some heated opposition to this concept.  It may be that this approach is not possible while the earth is yet in such a selfish mode.  But then again, are the inhabitants of the earth ready for super-inexpensive energy?  While on one hand it would enable independence and foster well-being, enabling the deserts to blossom and the downtrodden to become established, it also empowers enemies with means of delivery of weapons of mass destruction inexpensively?  This further supports the thesis that super-cheap, clean energy will not come forward until we as a civilization are ready for it -- and that an elevated business model would be entirely apropos as a necessary adjunct to its birthing.

So in conclusion, one principle is the benefit that comes from cooperating.  The other principle is that ideas, though they carry a stewardship, should not be fastidiously held to in a spirit of "mine".  We would not have the Internet as it is today without one person who holds the rights to it, ensuring that no one takes it over who would begin charging usage fees.

I can't help but think that a universal law would dictate that the abundance of free energy needs to be matched by an abundance mentality of the inventors bringing it forward, sharing their ideas one with another -- and that we will not surpass the efficiency of oil-based energy until we surpass the oil-based mentality of competition over cooperation.

# # #

Page commenced by Sterling D. Allan April 3, 2005; completed June 24, 2005
Last updated February 26, 2008