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'.

'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.