Portfolio

Home
Alt Think ~ Home
Chapter 03 – “Frie...

“Frienemies”.

The Sea Of Energy

In Which The Earth Floats

by
T. Henry Moray

Chapter 3 – “Frienemies”

At the request of R.L. Judd and the Judd interests, beginning in 1925 Henry Moray had taken into his confidence consultants, first Dr. Carl Eyring and Dr. Harvey Fletcher, and then Dr. Milton Marshall, Dr. Eyring and Dr. Marshall at that time members of the BYU faculty in the physics department. Not long after this Dr. Eyring went to Bell Laboratories at the invitation of Dr. Fletcher, who was at Western Electric and then became “physical research director for the Bell Laboratories of New York City.”

Although Henry Moray was reluctant to make immediate disclosure, eventually, I contend, Carl Eyring and Harvey Fletcher learned everything Henry Moray knew about the Radiant Energy device at that time. Step by step as he talked to Eyring, and later to Fletcher, he these two men everything, including the fact that Milton Marshall was attempting to identify the material that he called his “Swedish Stone”. When he described the action of his germanium mixture to the two physicists, they knew that the entire composition of the Swedish Stone had nit been properly identified, and that Dr. Marshall was working on the project for that purpose.

Carl Eyring and Harvey Fletcher both seemed to prefer to communicate through Moray’s lawyer, Judd. Dr. Marshall did correspond directly with Henry even after Henry withdrew from the Judd interest and created what became known as the Moray Products Company. At that time, Henry Moray hoped these gentlemen would still work with him as consultants. It is obvious that this belief was held by the principals of the Moray Products Company, who published the brief history we have just reviewed. Henry Moray felt that Harvey Fletcher and Carl Eyring were at least friendly observers, and he often referred others to them for recommendations on his work. Through the history of the project, however, this proved to be a mistake. It is my opinion that when Carl Eyring, Harvey Fletcher, and Henry Moray did not communicate directly, misunderstandings developed.

Dr. Fletcher insisted that Henry Moray take Carl Eyring into his confidence and show him every aspect of the project. Consequently, in an effort to please Eyring, Henry made test after test under various conditions and circumstances.

In a summary written November 19, 1925, by R. L. Judd, he tells that Henry Moray assembled the device in front of n and himself. Eyring spent over an hour examining the circuits and could not .in any fault in what he had seen. He stated that he could see that current was not obtained from batteries or hidden wires, and concluded that it was obtained by electromagnetic induction.

Henry Moray took great exception to this conclusion. In an effort to refute it, on December 21, 1925, Attorney Judd, R. L. Adams and Attorney Nebeker came to Moray’s home, took the device to nearby Emigration Canyon, and experimentally set it up to show that it would still work even when the distance to the nearest powerline was too great for power induction. Then, with Dr. Moray, one morning in February of 1926, Eyring “began working on the theory and hookups, examining the device, taking it apart and putting it back together, asking questions continually, taking notes, coming up with ideas on how to apply for a patent, making drawings and sketchings, going over the details of the theory.” Further quoting Henry Moray, “After spending all that afternoon with me, Dr. Carl Eyring congratulated me on what he termed my wonderful work and said what he had heard and seen was mathematically, electrically and scientifically sound and correct.”

Dr. Moray explained in his note that he described the radio detector he had developed to Carl Eyring. He compared it to what was commonly known as the crystal of a crystal set. However, his detector was superior since it could drive a loud speaker without the use of a battery. He also explained what he could of the Radiant Energy Detector, although he did not allow Eyring to dismantle it, as this would have destroyed it. Similarly, he explained the function to Fletcher and later Murray O. Hayes, and even to Dr. Henry Eyring.

It is my understanding from studying the work done by Marshall and from what Henry Moray said, that Carl Eyring, Fletcher, and Murray O. Hayes were shown everything except the chemical formulas for the R. E. Moray Valve, and this was only because my father was having difficulty establishing the formulas, even though Dr. Milton Marshall was expending considerable effort to identify the Swedish stone. I contend that both Carl Eyring and Harvey Fletcher knew of this effort.

They had access to the work Dr. Marshall was doing; therefore, they knew everything even if they didn’t think they did. What good did it do them to know? They still didn’t understand. Solid state physics was unknown. Henry Moray had no terminology to explain to these gentlemen of science how the detector worked. Simply telling them what was in it would have been useless. Consequently, he used the most easily demonstrated device, the germanium diode, that worked on the same principle a as a radio, to illustrate how he thought the Radiant Energy Detector worked. Logically, he felt that this was the only way he could make them understand what he was doing. Radio was understood; supposedly crystal sets were being investigated. Henry originally built the radio simply for that purpose – to show how he was able to pick up signals with a solid state device sufficiently strong that they would drive a loud speaker, which was something unheard of in that day. However, he was not able to reach understanding with the physicists. His circuit did not have batteries, as it was very, similar to the old crystal-set circuitry.

Attached figure shows how the original germanium valve was used and how it worked in the radio circuit.

The earliest drawings and descriptions of the Moray Valve are found in a sworn certificate dated November 14, 1927, where. he describes a germanium compound using “pure germanium”.

In 1937, in order to protect his interest in the germanium valve, he wrote an affidavit and had this affidavit witnessed. This affidavit refers to certain drawings and descriptions found in patent application 550611, which, according to the affidavit, is what he originally showed to Carl Eyring of BYU in his home in 1925, later to Harvey Fletcher of the Bell Laboratories in 1928, and finally to Murray O. Hayes, who was purportedly his patent attorney in 1931. I have made copies of the patent application that applied to the description found (Figure 8 and 9, patent application 550611) .

The Radiant Energy Detector, even today with the advanced state of the art of semi-conductors, is considered by our research organization to be proprietary and still of great value. Parts of the certificate (Figure 15) have been removed to protect those interests. It must be noted that the detector described in Figure 15 is also superior to most germanium semi-conductors known today because of some of the doping material used. That this bi-polar device is truly a transistor was verified by examination of the complete notes by Warren Simmonds, Ph.D., of Salt Lake City.

In September, 1928, Fletcher also had examined the device and had been thoroughly briefed on the circuits and hookups: Fletcher thought the energy came from one of two sources, either an external source as claimed by the inventor, or possibly through harmonizing or synchronizing the very units comprising the equipment in such a way that chemical action results in tubes sufficient to make the demonstration. At this point Dr. Fletcher suggested working further on the device and producing one hundred of them.

This same experiment (Moray/Fletcher) was referred to by Judd in a letter to Mr. Heffeneffer of Fall River, Massachusetts: ” on Thursday a week ago Mr. Moray and Dr. Fletcher spent the afternoon in a detailed study of the drawing, demonstrating the circuits involved and the theory upon which the mechanism is based. This was requested by Dr. Fletcher. On Thursday last, myself, and Mr. Jensen, another interested party, went down to Moray’s home. Dr. Fletcher was afforded the opportunity of studying the antenna, the ground, the respective connections with the machine. Moray then demonstrated that there was no life in any part of the machine.

“They successfully started up the device, taking about six mMn for tuning. Dr. Fletcher was given further opportunity study its operation. Flietcher, in observing the lamps, stated they were burning far above normal, and that if they were to continue at that degree of radiancy, they would soon burn out. While observing the lights, various tests were made, such as disconnecting the antenna and the ground. The lights were then screwed out quickly, and a 575 watt flat iron attached. This was heated to sizzling point in about 5 minutes. Then the wires were disconnected and the lights again put on. After the lights had been burning for some little time, for some reason, then unknown, they flickered a few minutes and then went out. It was determined after some investigation, that the cat’s whisker on the detector had become disengaged, and therefore the detector had ceased to operate. Encounters of difficulties only proved that Dr. Moray had not pre-planned the demonstration, and that it was pure investigation. According to Mr. Judd, Dr. Fletcher agreed that the machine was what Dr. Moray contended it to be. He said that Fletcher commented with regard to ‘battery action kept alive by some form of energy from the atmosphere’ and then said, ‘From this demonstration it is established, I should say absolutely, that we have something entirely new and very wonderful and that there is no possibility for doubt in any phase of this proposition.”‘

Judd’s letter concluded, “Dr. Fletcher left for New York by automobile yesterday morning. He told me that following the time he had to sit down and think out this matter a little and he would write us and try to make some suggestions for further development.”

The argument then became no longer one of induction, but of how long the device would endure. If it were some sort of battery action, could it last? So it was arranged that a time test would be made. The details are in the letter written by Robert L. Judd to Dr. Harvey Fletcher of the Bell Telephone Laboratories, where Mr. Judd outlines the procedure used when Dr. Murray Hayes and Mr. Jensen put the device through a series of time tests running from October 1 to October 6 or 7, 1928.

Soon after, Henry Moray and Carl Eyring had a date at BYU, and Eyring asked that particular tests be conducted to demonstrate specific levels of wattage. Henry Moray pointed out that this was impossible, because with the amount of wattage that Carl Eyring insisted upon, the amperage would burn out his device. Carl insisted that Henry Moray could demonstrate this without overheating the detector. As E=IR is the most basic formula in electronics, Henry had to insist that Carl was wrong. Henry put the needed formulas on the blackboard and insisted that either Carl Eyring would admit that they were correct, or else Henry would call in physicists, including Dr. Marshall, from the BYU physics department. Carl Eyring insisted that they were not correct, but finally, rather than have other physicists involved, he admitted in front of Mr. Judd that Henry Moray’s formulas were, indeed, correct. As a result, Henry Moray felt he had embarrassed Eyring in front of R. L. Judd. (And Henry Moray always wondered if Eyring didn’t blame him for the fact that he never became president of the Brigham Young University.) .

When Carl Eyring and Harvey Fletcher began to work as consultants on the project, R. L. Judd had sworn them to secrecy. Henry Moray believed that Harvey Fletcher had promised to provide help with the project because of letters delivered to him from Judd, his attorney. Early indications of trouble developed in 1928; however, Henry seems to have ignored most of them. A letter (quoted below) to R. L. Fletcher, passed to Henry through a third party, is important here. It gives, first, a notation written by Henry Moray which indicates that a disagreement was developing with Carl Eyrihg; second, it gives us an analysis of how Harvey Fletcher viewed Henry Moray’s discovery; third, it gives a means by which Harvey Fletcher is suggesting that the project be handled.

Mr. Judd, at this time, did not pursue the points the letter raised. Henry was still depending on Judd, as his own attorney and as the representative of what was known as the “Judd syndicate,” to guide him in business activities such as these.

There are several mistakes included in the copy of the letter as Dr. Ostler’s secretary typed it and sent it along with a personal note from Ostler written on a prescription pad.

“Dr. D.E. Ostler

Eureka, Utah

“(Copy of the letter written by Dr. Harvey Fletcher of the Western Electric Company under the date of Oct. 6, 1928 to Mr. Robert L. Judd of Salt Lake City. The letter was written in New York City.).

“Dear Judd:

“We had a very pleasant return trip, arriving here in about six and a half days. The constant driving made me somewhat tired but after two days rest I feel fine. One can get a very good conception of what our country is like by driving across it in an automobile.

“Now regarding the experiments Mr. Moray showed us, I will say at the outset that I am just as puzzled as ever. I can give no satisfactory explanation of the result. If I saw all the parts that enter into the production of the light I would certainly agree with Mr. Moray that either the tubes or the rectifier or the coil had some very remarkable properties. As a scientist I should like to see them investigated in some physical laboratory which is equipped to do such work. If Mr. Moray’s statement that the tubes have a capacity of a farad is even approximately true, the tubes alone have a great scientific value.

“The evidence as presented seems to favor Mr. Moray’s explanation of where the energy came from. However, because it is so contrary to all previous notions about electrical sources and also because Mr. Moray was unable or unwilling to state how the various parts functioned, I am still of the opinion that all of us, including probably Mr. Moray, have overlooked something which will explain the lighting of the light in an orthodox way.

“There are certain facts which became evident to me as I saw the experiments:

“(1) There is considerable energy drawn from somewhere. Apparently you have satisfied yourself that it is not from other power stations in the city. Then it must be in the set itself. This looks improbable although not impossible. Some careful experiments in a laboratory would settle this points.

“(2) The energy is transferred from a high impedence circuit to a low impedance circuit by means of a high frequency current. The high frequency is probably produced by an oscillatory circuit in the system and I think tests would reveal that the frequency of oscillation was entirely controlled by the constants of the circuit and not by outside influences. Any attempt to obtain current or voltage readings on the high impedance side of the circuit by ordinary meters would probably result in failure. This is confirmed by Mr. Moray’s experience.

“(3) If the source of energy is within the system, by redesigning the system the same performance can be obtained without the use of the antennae.

“(4) If the rectifier has only the function Mr. Moray claimed for it, then a substitute can easily be found which is much more stable and reliable. “Assuming Mr. Moray is correct in his explanation, in my opinion it would be many years before he would be able to perfect his device by working all alone by the cut-and-try methods that he must necessarily use. Progress is not made in these days by lone workers. There are so many phases to such a problem that it requires the coopers ion of specialists to answer satisfactorily the different phases of the problems. Unless Mr. Moray changes his attitude it seems to be hopeless to expect any progress whether he is right or wrong. He expects everybody to trust him and give him support but still he will trust nobody. When he will take into his confidence such fine men as Marshall and Eyring to such an extent that they can duplicate his apparatus I really think something good will come out of it, probably in quite a different way than he now expects.”

“Sincerely yours,

Signed (Harvey Fletcher)

In the foregoing letter, Dr. Harvey Fletcher agreed that there was evidence of considerable energy being drawn from somewhere. If the energy was within the device itself, as he supposed in the third paragraph, then the discovery was even greater than Henry Moray’s claims that the energy came from the universe. Both Harvey Fletcher and Carl Eyring had been given the opportunity to test each one of the components; including the detector, to determine whether there was any energy in the components. Fletcher implied that there was no known souce of energy outside of the set itself “if it is not induction.” Referring to the detector as the “rectifier” he discussed how easily this material could be found; in my opinion, showing he knew that the detector for had originally been found by Henry Moray and contained substances that he was not familiar with. No one had properly identified this substance at the time. Henry Moray had explained to them everything he knew about it, and they were asking questions which were beyond his capability to answer.

Fletcher’s emphasis then goes to his claim that Henry Moray was not taking Marshall and Eyring into his confidence in order for them to duplicate the Radiant Energy device.

This only amplifies my belief that Eyring and Marshall were working together and, from his paragraph 4, establishes that they knew as much as Henry Moray about the Swedish stone. If Carl Eyring was unable to duplicate Henry Moray’s work, it was simply because he did not ask to be allowed to do so. At what point this letter was delivered to Henry Moray, I do not know.

Communication broke down between Henry and the others. The decision became whom to listen to and whom to trust. His friend of nearly 20 years, R. L. Judd, withdrew because of his interests with powerful political people who had been offended when Henry Moray created the Moray Products Company. Of course, the final separation of Henry Moray and the Judd interests, although they were not openly hostile, left many people with hard feelings. Still, with the formation of the Moray Products Company, Henry hoped to keep a good relationship with Carl Eyring and Harvey Fletcher. This, however, did not follow. As he had trouble with patent applications and as his problems with the Moray Products Company multiplied, Henry heard rumors that disturbed him as to Eyring’s and Fletcher’s intentions. At the time, Henry Moray was alienated from Carl Eyring and consequently from Henry Eyring. He was also alienated from Harvey Fletcher and other scientists who depended upon Fletcher and the Eyrings for explanations of what Henry Moray was doing.

I am convinced that the Eyrings and Harvey Fletcher were also alienated because of the political influence of Judd interests, even though Henry Moray did not at first recognize it. Because my father did not clearly understand the circumstances and these men’s attitude, he continued to send people to Dr. Fletcher for references. Instead of asking Henry not to use his name, Fletcher gave bad references to those people who wrote him about my father.

Years later, after the Moray Products Company had been placed in receivership, Henry Moray found a telegram (Figure 19) from the American Industries and Management Corporation of New York, addressed to Murray O. Hayes of the Moray Products Company, stating that they had talked with Dr. Fletcher and were satisfied that “the thing is right for financing.” For some reason the deal fell through. Hayes had never informed Henry Moray about this company’s interest in him. This telegram along with Millikan’s letter gives the first indication of what Fletcher was saying at the time. It also gives an indication of how Henry Moray was isolated from those around him. Recent discussions between Richard Moray and Harvey Fletcher indicate that Fletcher had known nothing of this telegram.

In an attempt to get further scientific substantiation, Mr. William Lovesy wrote Dr. Robert Millikan of the California Institute of Technology in an effort to get him to go over the device. Dr. Millikan answered that he was not interested in investigating the device beyond what Dr. Fletcher and Dr. Eyring had done. Then he added that he was not interested because he was always suspicious of a person who is trying to conceal things from a group of scientists. Henry Moray’s comment on the side of this letter was “Moray has never tried to conceal anything.” Just when this letter came into Henry Moray’s hand from Lovesy, I do not know. However, it shows that even then Fletcher and Eyring contended they had not been shown everything, although Henry Moray believed he had withheld nothing.

If Eyring and Fletcher had been as supportive as it may appear from the cable of September 2, 1930, why was Robert Millikan suspicious of my father? It would appear that from this point Fletcher and Eyring had no further contact with Henry Moray and, more and more, Fletcher refused to be involved or even to discuss the subject with anyone.

Many people continued to write for recommendations on my father’s work, particularly to Harvey Fletcher because of his position with the Bell Laboratories. Negative reactions began to filter back. On March 30, 1933, Dr. C. R. Benzel, a chiropractor, wrote Fletcher in an effort to verify Henry Moray’s claims. Fletcher wrote back on April 17, saying, “I did not have an opportunity to go over his apparatus thoroughly.” Henry Moray’s reaction to the letter was to write a memo, “Plain untrue, see the letter from Attorney Judd, Mr. E. G. Jensen.” Fletcher had seen the circuit and had seen it work. He had had the opportunity of checking the circuit against the diagram.

In May of 1933, a Mr. Alvin Todd of San Francisco wrote Fletcher, and Fletcher replied: “In thinking over the amount of work necessary to make a complete report of what I know about Dr. Moray’s device, what I know about our other individuals and companies who have attempted to commercialize it and also my professional advice to anyone who is expecting to finance a company to exploit the device. I would conclude it would require about $200 worth of my time.” Apparently, Dr. Fletcher at this point simply does not want to be further involved. To the best of my knowledge, Dr. Fletcher was in no way involved in any of the companies or individuals trying to exploit the device.

Then in 1937, K.K. Steffenson wrote Fletcher from Los Angeles. What Bell Labs wrote, with memos written by Dr. Moray when he saw this letter, is enclosed. Dr. Fletcher’s reply shows his disinterest in the Moray discovery. Henry Moray’s memos show that there were definitely two sides to what took place.

In 1956 Dr. Moray first heard of the recommendation Fletcher made at the time he was with the College of Physics and Engineering at Brigham Young University in Provo. Fletcher stated, “I have recommended to him and to his sponsors that the only way he will ever get recognition for his Radiant Energy machine is to have a respectable engineering firm build it, and prove that it will work. Since he has failed to do this, I have no confidence in both his theories and his machine.”

On June 5, 1957, again Dr. Fletcher made a claim that he had gotten a corporation to agree to build the Moray device.

In all fairness to Dr. Fletcher, we can never know for certain what actually happened. We only know that, because of the offenses he suspected, Henry Moray considered Dr. Fletcher to be an enemy.

Recently an engineer with whom I have been associated on a number of projects, Glenn Foster, had an opportunity to talk to Dr. Harvey Fletcher, Sr.’ This engineer mistakenly thought that Fletcher had been a great friend of Henry Moray’s and spoke enthusiastically of Henry Moray’s discovery. Foster’s statement is printed in its entirety.

Fletcher may indeed have tried to invite Moray to Bell Laboratories. But I am sure that if the proper invitations had been made directly to him, Henry would have responded in some way. It would have been typical for Moray to have said, “I would be glad to go to Bell Laboratories if they will do so and so.” However, no such correspondence exists in Moray’s files.

The final blow to Dr. Moray was in 1959 when he received a letter from Ernest Wilkinson, then President of Brigham Young University. This letter was a great shock to Dr. Moray since he had not at the time made any inquiries to either Dr. Fletcher or Dr. Wilkinson, or to Brigham Young University, that would evoke such a letter. The letter again implied that Dr. Fletcher had had no opportunity to verify Moray’s device, adding that “until you’re willing to have your ideas tested and verified in an acceptable manner I fear there is nothing we can do to assist you.”

Wilkinson was implying that Henry Moray had not made a complete disclosure to Fletcher. I contend, knowing Henry Moray as I did and from my investigation of the record, that Fletcher had known everything. Wilkinson made an error when he asserted that an inventive scientist makes disclosures. Indiscriminate disclosure: such as publishing work in journals or presenting it to “juries of qualified scientists” becomes a bar to patentability. Only when a scientist becomes a consultant working on a project can disclosure be made to him – as was made to Fletcher, Eyring, Marshall and the patent Attorney Hayes – without making the work public property.

Henry Moray, knowing that he really had made complete disclosures to Fletcher, could never understand why Ernest Wilkinson said what he did. Finally, we have the sworn statement of Glen Foster as to what Fletcher actually said at a later time. I leave it to the reader to examine the material carefully and draw his own conclusions.

Henry feared that Fletcher had used the information given him for his own purposes. By 1948 it was Henry Moray’s understanding that Fletcher had been in the department in Bell Laboratories that developed the transistor. He could not dispel the feeling that the worst violation of confidence had taken place.

To quote from page 133 of the original “Sea of Energy” Henry Moray says: “The Moray files, signed drawings, records and documents, together with scores of witnesses who heard the Moray radio operated by. the Moray germanium valve all prove that Moray discovered and experimentally operated the device now known as the transistor some twenty years prior to the time the Bell Laboratories did so. The records s ow this discovery was disclosed as early as 1925 to Dr. Carl Eyring who was later with the Bell Laboratories and a cousin of Dr. Fletcher. Also that in 1928 it was shown to Dr. Harvey Fletcher who became the head of the division of the Bell Laboratories which came out with the transistor in 1948.

“It is the opinion of the editors that it is certainly strange that two employees of Bell Laboratories came out with a germanium mixture that prototyped the Moray valve. We doubt that the Bell Laboratories know the full story of this discovery as they, being an honorable company, would never have been a party to such an unethical action.”

It is hard to believe that Fletcher did not recognize the similarity of Henry Moray’s bipolar germanium diode and the work conducted by William Shockley, John Bardeen, and Walter H. Brattain. It is inconceivable to me that Fletcher could observe the work going on at the Bell Laboratories (as, Henry Moray understood, the head of the research department) and not see the similarity in the use of germanium to what Henry had done. Even if the discoverers of the transistor, John Bardeen and Walter H. Brattain, received no assistance from Fletcher at all, why did not Fletcher point out the similarity of the work and at least give Henry Moray credit for the work he had done? This same situation has developed in my research. An engineer who signed confidential disclosure agreements with Cosray Research Institute before Henry Moray died, is working with the Eyring Research Institute – which has shown great interest in Henry Moray’s work in what is now called “Direct Energy Conversion Systems.” This involves using radioactive material in conjunction with the quartz junction. Originally, the engineer I mentioned agreed that the Eyring Institute would give credit to Dr. Moray for his work in this area. However, from the information I have been able to obtain, the Institute is not giving him credit. I am not contending they are stealing his work, I am only contending that they are paralleling the work done in 1929-’30. The fact that they are using a different radioactive material from what Henry Moray used is of no importance.

One may well ask what damage was done.

The Eyring family is an old closely-knit pioneer family. Dr. Carl Eyring is a cousin of Dr. Henry Eyring’s, who is also a cousin of my wife’s. I believe Henry to be of great integrity and thoroughly honorable. It is my personal opinion that even if no direct slight to Henry Moray’s work was ever intended by Carl Eyring, these misunderstandings did him great damage and have been carried on by Henry Eyring – first in his denial that he ever saw the device, and second in his statements that no energy was ever produced. In 1963, when I was informed that Henry Eyring was making these kinds of statements I determined that the only way of ending this misunderstanding would be to have a conference with Henry Eyring. Gene Vickers and I went to see Dr. Eyring and confronted him with the fact that he had seen the lights light and the motors run. At that time he did “admit privately” that he had seen the device in operation. But publicly he would not say that he had seen it. The following letter dated January 14, 1974, was written by Gene Vickers as his account of that day. In February, 1965, Dr. Moray and I wrote a memo for record which carries my memory of the event. Any minor discrepancies that may appear are of little importance; the general information is all that I feel is important.

Also in 1963 in conjunction with his own efforts to develop Radiant Energy, Dr. Robert Craig of Norburg Manufacturing and a friend of Henry Moray from the REA days, wrote Henry Eyring at the University of Utah. In his reply Henry Eyring denied having ever seen the device. The bottom of the letter contains a handwritten statement by Dr. Moray. Again in May, Henry Eyring told Ed Hermann essentially the same thing.

There are many things in science that work but it has not been proven why they work. The rejection of Moray’s work simply because no one could understand why it worked seems almost unbelievable, to say he least. We still do not understand just why aspirin works e.g., but that certainly does not prevent its widespread use.

Even more obvious damage was done by Henry Eyring in discussing Henry Moray’s work with Commissioner C. E. Larson of the Atomic Energy Commission. William Kerber of Washington, D. C. had asked Larson to look into Moray’s work, as a possible alternative to atomic energy. Commissioner Larson stated that he had talked to Henry Eyring and that Henry Eyring was convinced there was “no evidence that any energy has been harnessed by Moray.” But if the usage of power is not a sign of energy wing harnessed and provided, he must not understand the term “energy.” Commissioner Larson also stated he thought that Henry Moray had not permitted examination of his apparatus. On the contrary, as I have argued before, I believe Fletcher and Eyring and several others had received complete descriptions both in their attempts to obtain scientific information on the device and as consultants for Dr. Moray.

Comparing Henry Eyring’s statement with that made by Harvey Fletcher, a contradiction appears. I find it very interesting that Eyring said there is no demonstrable evidence of energy being harnessed, but Fletcher said that the result being obtained was too large to be explained by the only theory he was able to find to account for the source of energy, admitting that there was more wattage than they could explain. On the one hand, Henry Eyring is saying that there was no evidence of energy; but on the other hand, Fletcher is saying there is too much energy to come from known sources. In other words, because they didn’t know the sources, they discounted any evidence they saw. This is what Henry Eyring explained to me. Because he didn’t understand it he would in no way admit that he saw it.

A scientist does not have to say that he knows how something works in order to say that he has seen experimental evidence that it operates. When we examine a research project we can state we have seen a reaction take place even though we do not understand why. If we say that there was no evidence of energy being harnessed, how do we explain the energy? Where could it have possibly come from? Henry and Carl knew it didn’t come from any of the components of the device because they examined all the components of the device. Henry Moray’s note at the bottom of Henry Eyring’s letter of April 25, 1963, says Henry Eyring was given an opportunity to examine the entire device. He was shown how the solid state device, the detector, worked. Although he was not allowed to dismantle the RE detector, this was because dismantling would have destroyed it. However, they were allowed to test for energy coming out of that detector, and they were shown a substitute device and allow to dismantle this. Henry Moray could easily reproduce the radio detector. But to reproduce the RE detector was impossible, forcing him to use some discretion in dismantling this two ounce bit of material.

I believe Carl and Henry Eyring checked every single part of the Radiant Energy Device and determined that none of the components were active. Consequently, the important question for the scientists viewing the demonstration became: If the energy was not harnessed from the universe, how could they explain that the lights lit and the motor ran? And no one, not even Fletcher and Eyring could really answer that question. Thus, in both Eyring’s statements, first in his letter of May 7, 1963, to Ed Hermann (“Moray’s equipment was not made available to me for inspection”), and then in his letter to Dr. Craig, April 25 1963, he said the same thing: essentially, that Moray did not make the instrument available for inspection. Gene Vickers paraphrases him by saying, “He didn’t see the small part that was capable of being hidden in Henry Moray’s hand.” But the part was not hidden; he was given an opportunity to examine it, he knew it was not the source of power. Henry Eyring is not in the same situation as Carl Eyring or Harvey Fletcher – Carl Eyring and Harvey Fletcher were consultants.

Having discussed this once with Henry Eyring, I do not feel myself under any obligation to discuss it with him again.

One can easily see from the evidence presented that it was difficult for Henry Moray to communicate effectively with Dr. Henry Eyring. Because he did not understand the Radiant Energy device, Eyring seemed convinced that he could not afford to say that he saw it operate.

In 1961, Henry Moray and I traveled to Washington, D.C. at the invitation of Congressman David King to visit NASA. By this time, Robert Craig and Moray had become very friendly. Dr. Craig met us and agreed to represent Moray to negotiate an attempt to get NASA to develop Radiant Energy. Robert Craig, having been with the R.E.A., was thoroughly convinced of the great and general value of Henry Moray’s work.

On July 24, 1961, in the morning, Dr. Craig got Dr. Moray out of bed to inform him NASA had just called to say that they would be willing to go forward on the five million dollar program we had outlined, with the stipulation that after the first $2.5 million had been spent, the project could be re-evaluated. However, in a letter received from NASA, dated 21 July, the assistant director, Mr. Colon, stated: “We appreciate your offer to have some of our scientists visit your laboratory in Salt Lake City with a complete review of the work which you have done on Radiant Energy. However, we regret that we must advise you that after careful study of your proposal by scientists both in this headquarters and in our research center most active in the science area involved, it is our considered opinion that the probability of your Radiant Energy concept resulting in a practical, useable device for aeronautics or space flight applications is not sufficient to justify support by this agency.” Dr. Craig, in further investigating this rather complete NASA reversal, was told by friends that the Appropriations Committee – i.e., Utah Senator Wallace Bennett – had killed the project. Consequently, I went rather irately to a friend of mine, Lyle Holmgren, and requested Lyle to ask Senator Bennett for an explanation.

Senator Bennett’s letter is enclosed. In it the Senator takes the attitude that Dr. Moray asked for something for nothing and that it only involved a minimum of $50,000. And that Moray refused to reveal the whereabouts of his “box.” This is particularly interesting as the story relates to nothing I am aware of, and I was present during all negotiations with NASA. In the third paragraph he questions whether Moray has a true scientific approach and implies that Moray should .simply openly release his work. My father refused to make specific disclosures ‘Without signed and legally binding contracts. If this is carrying an invention as “too tight a secret,” then why do patent laws require it.?

Several other competent observers wrote Henry both personal and professional letters. Dr. Frank Stewart Harris, at the time president of Brigham Young University, wrote making reference to his visit with Henry Moray. Years later Dr. Harris seemed not to remember visiting Henry and seeing the device in operation. A number of letters were then exchanged, and after reexamining his files Dr. Harris wrote a very friendly letter.

Dr. Milton Marshall of Brigham Young University remained friendly; he wrote several letters which show his interest in Dr. Moray’s work and their close association.

Another doctor of science who was interested in Dr. Moray’s work and willing to publicly say so was Dr. O.L. Polly, physicist from Baltimore, Maryland, who wrote in 1936 of his visit to the laboratory.

It would be quite improper for me not to say something positive about Henry’s friends. S.E. Bringhurst entered the picture at the end of the Moray Products Company fiasco. Having been one of the stockholders, he became one of the officers after Schade, Farnsworth and Hayes were eliminated. He worked with Henry as the corporation was dissolved, and he was vice president at one time.

As the Research Institute developed, S.E. Bringhurst was the first president of the Research Institute. He was a businessman in Murray, Utah, and very successful. He, like the Moray family, shared some of the burdens. Shots were fired at him within a few weeks of the time my mother and the rest of the family were fired at. S.E. did not have bullet-resistant glass, and the bullet passed by the right side of his head and exited the car at the rear.

All during the R.E.A. days, S.E. Bringhurst gave my father close support against those individuals who were most officious in their administration of the program. Until about 1942, S.E. devoted considerable effort to raising funds for Dr. Moray to finish his research and standardize the Radiant Energy device. S. E. became a mission president for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in August of 1944, and he resigned as president of the Research Institute at that time. His successor was Chester M. Todd.

Chester Todd, Henry’s nephew, has never ceased to be enthusiastic about Radiant Energy. To this day he is one of its greatest active supporters. He is presently the principal of Churchill Junior High School in Salt Lake City and a director of the Cosray Research Institute. Chester lives in the original home his mother and father built on Fifth East Street next to where Henry lived.

Another person that I certainly shall not forget is William Lovesy. Bill Lovesy’s niece, Afton Henegar, often spoke of how enthusiastic Bill Lovesy was about Radiant Energy and how positive he was that it was a force with the “power to change the world.” Henry often quoted Bill as saying, “I can go so far to interest people in Radiant Energy, and then it seems as though I run into a stone wall.” Bill came into the picture at the end of the Moray Products Company era, and he corresponded with Murray O. Hayes, Harvey Fletcher and Carl Eyring in an effort to verify the work that Dr. Moray pad done up to 1932. Henry often said that if Bill Lovesy had lived, he was sure he would have made Radiant Energy a success. Bill did not take “no” for an answer. He died of injuries received in an automobile accident when returning from Denver. His passenger, a hitchhiker, was uninjured in the rollover. After the accident, Bill lived several weeks in the hospital but was never able to speak again.

K. K. Steffenson was not only an attorney who stood by Henry Moray for many years, he also became the secretary of the Research Institute and remained an officer of the corporation longer than any other. He was still secretary of Cosray Research Institute at the time I became president. K.K., as we called him, seemed to be ostracized by the business community of Salt Lake, though I never understood why. As an attorney and as a man his integrity was impeccable, a person having the highest intelligence, having succeeded in a number of academic fields and being physically very apt in a number of sports. It is my understanding he was a personal friend of Franklin D. Roosevelt’s from Columbia University. His notes and his books are still stored in the Cosray laboratory since they were purchased by my father in an effort to preserve them, with the idea that at some future date they could be published. K.K. had a favorite joke that I’ve often enjoyed telling: “In Salt Lake City, things are becoming so bad they are burying two people in one grave. On one of the headstones there is a notation, `Here lies an attorney, and an honest man.”‘

Another friend that I remember specifically was Nathaniel Baldwin. Baldwin was the founder of what became Baldwin Radio. When Baldwin Radio was in Salt Lake City, Nathaniel Baldwin had a considerable amount of money. Baldwin wanted to support Radiant Energy. However, Henry felt that Nathaniel was tied up with too many people who were leading a course to disaster. History proved Henry to be correct. Nathaniel Baldwin went to jail under conditions such that even the judge make the remark that he believed Nathaniel Baldwin to be innocent of any intentional wrongdoing, but as president of the corporation, he was responsible for actions of those under him.

After Nathaniel left prison, he used to walk about four miles to come and see my father at the laboratory on Fourth East. I remember many times going to the door and seeing the old man in a ragged coat standing in the cold. After a visit, my father would say, “Nathaniel, I was just sending Eugene on an errand, and he is going right by your place. Let him take you home.” Between the two men there was the greatest respect. Dad respected Nathaniel for his honesty and integrity. Nathaniel Baldwin respected my father because Henry never gave up even though circumstances turned against him. Henry remained Nathaniel Baldwin’s friend until the day Nathaniel died.

Many persons have questioned how Henry could have possibly built such an intricate device as we have reported it to be. This was due in no small part to the assistance of Nathaniel Baldwin in makin available the facilities of Baldwin Laboratories Also William Lovesy brought, the facilities of the Great Western Radio, located in Salt Lake City at that time, to Henry. These two laboratories furnished a great amount of material and labor without obligation.

Gabriel Mes (Figure 36), a master machinist and a. wizard with anything mechanical, worked in a machine shop on East Second South in Salt Lake City. Many times my father took me with him to see Gabriel Mes, and I remember the big lathes and the wonderful equipment that he had. I remember going with Henry and Gabriel when they used to recharge the magnets on the magnetizer that Gabriel Mes had at the facilities of Great Western Radio. I remember the stories Gabriel used to tell about his work as a machinist and about some of the wonderful work he had done for my father and others. He was proud of his work. He was able to machine two pieces of steel so that without oil they would stick together from the vacuum created by the finely machined surfaces.

Alfred Burrell was more than an acquaintance and a relative, he was a good friend. Alfred was a watchmaker and jeweler, and he did much of the fine work my father was unable to do. The adjusting of the cat whiskers and the fine soldering in building detectors were done by Alfred Burrell. Alfred is now in his eighties and to this day he speaks fondly of my father and the work he did for him, and of how the Radiant Energy Device amazed him.

I remember George Danly, the founder of the Wyoming Lebarge Oil Company. He gave my father some of the oil stock, and it proved to be one of the best assets my father had in his later years. I always knew Danly as “the gum man” because, besides representing the oil company at the time, he also represented one of the chewing gum companies in the Salt Lake City area. Another gum salesman was V.M. Stock, the representative for Beechnut gum. Stock desperately tried to arrange finances for Henry in the early days, just before world War II. However, he was transferred to California by Beechnut, and wartime travel restrictions prevented us from further social contact.

There are several other persons I must mention, and I am sure that there were many that I was not aware of as a boy. Walter Scoville, another oil man, made millions of dollars at various times, but he also lost millions of dollars at various other times. Walter tried very hard to make a go of the business for Dad. Another man who assisted Dad was Harry Harris, who I believe died of leukemia in Tooele, Utah. Another person who befriended Henry was a man named Nalder from the San Francisco area. Nalder was an undertaker and very successful.

I must mention C. R. Benzil from Greeley, Colorado, and also Ralph Noffsinger and his nephew, Harold Noffsinger, from Salt Lake City, who did many of the patent application drawings during the Moray Products Company days. Lou Gardner, Clyde Gardner, E.G. Jensen, Harold Jensen, Grant Stringham – and others I have been unable to remember because of my young age – aided my father. All these men in one way or another supported Henry Moray in his work.

Without Gabriel Mes’s contacts in England and Germany, Dr. Moray would have never been able to have his “tubes” made. The reader must realize I use the words “tubes” loosely. Basically my father’s “tubes” were solid state devices.

As the years have passed, many well-meaning persons have come, assisted my father’s work, and gone. And in this chapter let me acknowledge our appreciation to all those who have assisted or aided in this work. And particularly let me say I deeply appreciate those who in the last few years have honestly tried without wile to further the work.

Finally, I am also impressed that many individuals have come deliberately trying to hinder the work; or if they were not trying to hinder, they fall strictly into the class of “frienemies”. One of Henry’s ” frienemies” once said, “Leave Henry alone; when we need his Radiant Energy Device, he’ll be humbled sufficiently so that we will be able to get it.”

I don’t know how far a man is expected to be humbled; however, I do know that because of such attitudes, humankind has come very close to losing T. Henry Moray’s Radiant Energy altogether.

I would like to tie a few remaining loose ends together and show what to me are some of our best letters. I gathered sworn statements over the last few years, because I could see that Henry Moray’s work was completed as far as he himself was going to be able to take it. To once again reaffirm what had actually been done, I went to a number of individuals who had seen the device operated.

The first person I approached was Sam Bringhurst. I showed him a picture and had him swear that this was a picture that he had seen, and on the back of the picture you will see that he swore in front of a notary, J. B. Bell, that this? was one of the tests he saw. S.E., as my father fondly called Bringhurst remained until he died a very close friend of my father’s. The two men died not more than six months apart.

The second photograph is an enlargement of a photograph of my father in the basement of his home prior to the time the basement was remodeled for a small laboratory. The reader will notice the crude covering over the windows. This photograph is sworn to be my cousin, Chester M. Todd, principal at a local junior high school and Colonel in the U.S. Army Reserve. The photograph and Chester’s sworn statement are included.

The next statement I include is a sworn statement by A.B. Jensen, taken before K.K. Steffenson, in which Jensen gave an account of the work that was done in the presence of, supposedly, a representative of President Hoover. The induction story was still extant, although the battery thesis had pretty well been laid to rest. After all, if one had batteries that were able to put out the kind of power demonstrated over the period of time that the device had operated, the batteries alone would have been a commercial bonanza.

In 1938 Henry Moray wanted to make one more isolated test and decided on what now is known as Dugway, west of Salt Lake City, near Johnson’s Pass. Note that even though this happened 25 years before the certificate was made, A.B. Jensen had a vivid recollection of the test.

The next affidavit is one given by David I. Gardner at Midvale, Utah, 14. September 1963, in which David Gardner reiterates what he saw in 1936. He also mentions a few of the other Moray inventions that he was familiar with and had seen.

The next affidavit is a little older. This is an affidavit that A.B. Jensen swore before K.K. Stefenson, December 1956.

Finally, I have included a statement from Dr. Robert B. Craig. Dr. Craig points out in 1963 that when he was a member of the REA he had personal knowledge of the Moray experiment with the REA, and the engineer, Crim, also had personal knowledge of what had taken place.

The Craig letter is particularly interesting; in the next chapter the reader will discover that Henry Moray’s differences with the REA were very great. And yet, in spite of these differences, Dr. Craig – who had not participated in some of the covert activities of the REA – made his peace with Henry and proved to be one of his greatest supporters.

I’ve also added two other interesting letters, not necessarily in chronological order. The first is a letter dated June 29, 1932, written W.H. Lovesy. Mr. Lovesy was unafraid to tackle the so called “experts,” and he attempted to pin down both Fletcher and Eyring in order to establish once and for all their position and to get financial backing for the project. Both gentlemen had evidently had second thoughts about the Moray device by this time; and the agreement between Mr. Lovesy and these two gentlemen was that if Dr. Murray O. Hayes were given a complete disclosure, then they would back it. Hayes was given this complete disclosure. I quote from the letter he gave Mr. Lovesy, October 24, 1929, in which he states: “You are already aware that I have seen many demonstrations of what this mechanism will do and that I have seen the parts of which it is built. Recently, Mr. Moray had shown to me the wiring diagrams and assembly, and I am free to say that I can find no inconsistencies in it nor anything which does not appear to be logical and sound. While the hookup appears to be very complicated when looking at the machine, it is in reality very simple. In essence, it is based upon recognized laws of electricity when all is explained. There are many features which appear to be incidental, but they are in reality of basic importance.

“He has also shown me and explained the detector which he uses. In this he has applied a fundamental principle of electrical circuits, which I believe would not be noticed unless pointed out by him. This element of his device also, as above mentioned in respect to the circuit, has numerous features which appear incidental but are the heart of the matter and of first importance.”

So the idea that Dr. Moray made no complete disclosure and that no one was taken into his confidence is not valid, and this story, like the G. E. sellout story, was generated by his enemies simply to stop his progress.

Henry Moray made one other attempt to convince the scientific community that his device was genuine. He had already completely disclosed it, not only to his patent attorney, but to Hayes, Fletcher, and Carl Eyring. He had offered to do the same thing or Millikan; however. Millikan had refused, saying he would take Eyring’s an Fletcher’s words. but now he agree to a Dr Kundson, of Stanford University, examine the device.

A lawyer arranged ofr Dr. Knudson to observe some tests and to perform other tests on the RE Device to establish that the device was operating properly. I know that my father became very upset because Dr. Knudson repeatedly threw the switch in and out, resulting in an inductive surge that burned out the device.

Dr. Knudson left without fulfilling his promise, given to Dr. Moray and M Richards, to write a statement admitting what he had seen. Consequently, when Dr. Knudson did not do as he had promised, Dr. Mora wrote the enclosed letter objecting to what had happened.

The foregoing array of evidence should overwhelmingly document the genuineness of the Moray Radiant Energy Device. The fact that Henry Moray became somewhat of a recluse, refusing to make further disclosures to people and refusing to trust anyone in the scientific community, is more than justified when one considers the shabby treatment he consistently received. In addition, his life was often severely endangered. Further, anyone who is not naive is aware a industrial espionage is a biggest active area of espionage today. Doctors of Science have no more or no less integrity than any other group, and they are just as greatly involved in industrial espionage as are their business counterparts.

And so T. Henry Moray’s Radiant Energy Device – which could have lifted every man from the dust and raised mankind to the stars – was repeatedly and methodically suppressed by greediness, suspicion, and desire for power and domination over the marketplace and over other men.

* Deseret News, Saturday, Dec. 29, 1934

** Henry Moray’s denials of this fact were only defensive in nature.

* In investigating with the manager of one of the local chemical supply houses, I asked him what Dad meant by pure germanium”. He said, “Your father sent it back five times for repurification before we reached the grade he demanded.” Part of this certificate has been blanked out so as to protect proprietary information.