These comments may be of interest to readers. Just before Christmas I received a letter from Dr. George Egely who gave his address as Budakeski. P.O. Box 38, H-2092, Hungary. This letter, dated December 8th, was followed by a 156 page printed report (No. KFKI-1987-10/D) issued by the Central Research Institute for Physics of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Budapest. The report had the title ‘Hungarian Ball Lightning Observations’ and the sub-title ‘Case 1 – Case 278’.

His letter to me read:

‘I have come across your paper submitted
to the Denver conference earlier this year, where you wrote about the
importance of rotations in vacuum or ether. I feel that it is an
important insight, though very sketchy at the moment.

The reason for this feeling is my numerous encounters with ball
lightning destruction. For over ten years I have collected material
evidence on destruction caused by ball lightning. I have spent my
whole adult life doing research on energy transport in nuclear energy
technology. I have a background in the calculation of conservation
laws.

To my surprise, in the case where ball lightning was involved,
sometimes apparently a million times more energy and electric charge
appeared than could be accounted for by our textbook physics. I have
a large collection of case studies on video I have collected in the
last 10 years. They clearly indicate an enormous energy and electric
charge output, house walls pushed apart (not explosions!), kilograms
of metal wires melted by ball lightning. These and other permanently
recorded features show that some unusual, unknown phenomenon takes
place there.

Unfortunately when I’ve tried to publish the results of my
observations and calculations they were turned down and I gave up
after many rejections. The raw data on photographs and video records
was there for everybody, but my fellow workers ignored it.

I tried to find some explanation and I came up with the idea of
four-space-dimensional ball lightning in order to circumvent the
apparent violation of charge and energy conservation.

Your model, however, offers in principle another, perhaps more
simple explanation for the severe violation of conservation laws.
Basically this is the reason for my letter.’

Dr. Egely’s letter then developed into an enquiry about my ‘rotational vacuum model’, what I have referred to elsewhere as vacuum spin. Dr. Egely also said:

‘I am a bit familiar with your views, as I bought one of your books, Physics Unified, in England. (I could afford only two books, one of them was yours, because it offered a new insight into some of my problems.)

So, there you have it. My talk at the New Energy Symposium in
Denver, which was aimed at supporting the Correa discovery by showing
why the excess energy was drawn in from the aether by the vacuum spin
process, had produced an echo in far away Budapest in Hungary. The
‘echo’ was amplified by Dr. Egely’s words:

‘A million times more
energy and electric charge appeared than could be accounted for by
textbook physics’.

The secondary echo, was more familiar,

‘Unfortunately when I’ve tried to publish the results of my
observations and calculations they were turned down and I gave up
after many rejections’.

I shall send Dr. Egely a copy of my Energy Science Report No. 8
concerning my interpretation of the Correa invention, especially as
this includes a version of my 1983 paper on the nature of the
thunderball as published by the Institute of Physics in U.K.