Is It Time to Change Our Theoretical Models?


Recently, when two Irishmen publicly challenged the establishment scientific community to test their “free-energy” magnetic system, the reaction to the news revealed differences in worldview within the New Energy community.

The challenge came out in late August. Two Dublin businessmen bought a full-page ad in the Economist maga­zine, seeking a dozen, credible scientists to judge and jury their invention. CEO Sean McCarthy, a 40 year old engi­neer and his company’s marketing manager Richard Walshe claim their company has found a way to produce abun­dant free, clean energy whose source seems to be the space that surrounds us.

They say at least eight independent electrical engineers and Ph.D. scientists have already tested the invention and found it works, but none of those people are willing to speak up publicly. Sounds as though the Irish engineers have suffered the same frustrations experienced by other inventors we know.

McCarthy commented to one news service that he and his colleagues had no illusions about the cynicism they face. The invention challenges a basic principle of today’s physics—you can’t get more out than you physically put in. However, implications of the technology go far beyond scientific curiosity. He said it could solve problems such as se­curity of energy supply and how to produce zero-emission energy. To do this, the Dublin business people believe, they need the scientific community to publicly validate and endorse the invention.

Ironically, McCarthy and Walshe spent decades in the oil industry before setting up their technology research company, Steorn. Their potentially world-changing discovery came after police asked for help in catching criminals who clone ATM cards and Steorn came up with a system of tiny surveillance cameras. To power the cameras without wiring into the power grid, Steorn engineers experimented with improving the efficiency of wind generators. Three years ago, in the middle of those experiments, company co-founder, Mike Daly, noticed a problem—a generator was putting more energy out than they were putting in.

Steorn went on to spend nearly three million pounds to develop the technology. Their website doesn’t give the technical recipe, but it does provide a forum for voices on both sides of the controversy over “free-energy” claims. The eyes of the world are on these men and my Irish heritage only adds to the desire to see them succeed.

If Steorn’s discovery proves valid, must it necessarily be seen as violating the law that says energy can be neither created nor destroyed? If the magnets in their machine pump energy from a heretofore unrecognized background field of energy, then they don’t create energy; they just convert it. If so, by manipulating the design of magnetic gen­erators in ways that would overcome or avoid the counter-force that usually opposes movement of magnets in a gen­erator, we can, it seems, tap into a new source of energy. A new world of energy abundance could open up.

However, not everyone who labels their field of endeavor “New Energy” wants to cross a certain divide. The divid­ing line sorts out whether or not you can accept the possible reality of a previously unknown source of energy—all around us. Or, on the other hand, it sorts out whether you can accept consensus-science’s theoretical models as for-ever-written-in-stone “laws,” never to be expanded or modified.

Cold-fusion (Low Energy Nuclear Reactions, LENR) scientists dance around this dividing line, although they too can be accused of challenging established science. Instead of welcoming further evidence of the limits of consensus science, many stay in the safety of academic communities or in secluded research laboratories out of sight of what is now called fringe science.

To be fair, LENR academics do sometimes have the courage to say publicly that the existing paradigm of the scien­tific establishment is inadequate. But exactly how far should the paradigm be stretched? Often they draw the line just beyond their own research.

We won’t all agree on one world-view, no matter how many unorthodox inventions are proven to be the real thing. Your paradigm is limited by what you see from where you stand.

A few LENR scientists will be speaking at Dr. Thomas Valone’s second Conference on Future Energy (CoFE) on September 22 to 24, so I expect CoFE’s tone in general will be much more conservative than was Steve Elswick’s Tes­laTech conference last month. I believe that the science frontier needs both approaches—caution-and-credentialed and free-to-explore-the-furthest-out-research.

You can’t get much further out than a three-foot by two-foot platform that flew high above the Russian country­side at speeds of 1000 miles per hour while protecting its lone occupant within a strange force field. That’s one of the stories woven into a presentation at TeslaTech this year. While the story of Grebennikov and his antigravity platform is no news to those who follow the new energy trail, TeslaTech presenter, Dan Davidson, had some interesting re­search to add to it—the June bug (beetle) wing could be the basis of Grebennikov’s design for his platform. In other words, we’re getting insights about antigravity effects in nature.

The background tale is that Viktor Stepanovich Grebennikov was an entomologist from Novosibirsk City. One night in the 1980s he was camping outdoors and having an extremely hard time getting to sleep, so he moved his sleeping bag to another area. The next day he had a look at the troublesome area. Bumble bees had built mud nests in the entire bank and they were creating some subtle effect in the area. He carried a load of the nests back to his labora­tory. One day he happened to run his hand across the top of those bee nests and could feel energy like heat or a wind coming off them, although the dried mud was at room temperature. This eventually led him to discoveries about cavity-structure effects—certain shapes of spaces act as resonance points for the ether. (As he told the story, Davidson referred to the previous day’s presentation at the conference. As water was “charged,” onlookers could feel tangible energetic effects with their hands held above the water.)

Back to the Russian entomologist—Grebennikov ended up discovering antigravity effects caused by insects’ struc­ture. He used the knowledge to build a levitating platform. It had crude-looking controls, but according to one mag­azine article, the platform emanated a force field that made it look to observers on the ground like a light sphere or a cloud was passing overhead.

Grebennikov died of a stroke—not while on a flight, as far as I know.

Meanwhile, cooperation among New Energy researchers enters the picture, even among those who are skeptical about details of the Grebennikov story. Dr. Ted Loder had heard Davidson talk at a TeslaTech meeting two years ago and wanted to help. As a professor at the University of New Hampshire, Loder had access to a scanning electron mi­croscope and volunteered to photograph green June beetle wings, highly magnified for Davidson. He captured stun­ning views of micron-sized cones and fins arrayed on parts of the beetle wings.

Dan Davidson, of course, wasn’t just interested in the aesthetics. He is the author of books, such as Shape Power and has about 40 years of experimentation experience resulting in a view of the ether as a hydrodynamic superfluid. Davidson saw a correlation of the nano-structure of the wings with other “shape power” effects he had discovered over the years. Could an antigravity effect be created by a combination of the beetle’s curved wing cover and the elec­trostatic field of the chitin cover and inner wing?

Have the TeslaTech presenters built a flying platform? No, Davidson concludes that more research is needed to try to duplicate Grebennikov’s results, but it seems that layered chitin (as in beetles’ wings) could be one clue to control of gravity. Davidson also reported on the work of Dr. Ed Wagner, author of a book called Waves in Dark Matter, who showed that plant growth is controlled by non-electromagnetic, longitudinal, standing waves. He measured antigravi­ty effects in plants, especially trees. Davidson pointed out the parallel with the insect world—trees also grow in layers—layers of cellulose—and the chemical structure of cellulose and chitin is nearly identical.

There is more, much more to Davidson’s lecture and those of other speakers at the TeslaTech conference. Here’s just one more vignette, gleaned by listening to a presentation and also recalling a visit to El Paso, Texas, in 1990 when I met one of the presenters, Warren York and his colleague Mike Windell. They now work with another re­searcher, John Fiala, who told about encountering one of their discoveries. I’ve merely put it into story form:

Picture some men in a laboratory. One of them, John Fiala, is a hands-on electrical engineer, so naturally he touched the black substance that his two colleagues Mike Windell and Warren York were showing him. It was a bit of substrate containing tens of thousands of tiny crystals, grown in their private laboratory. The crystalline substance had been bombarded with a specifically modulated electromagnetic field.

Fiala’s attention was diverted by the interview they were having with a potential investor for their research, so he scraped the substrate off his finger onto a copper penny and covered it with another penny. He fished further in his pocket, found a label off a prescription bottle, wrapped the label around the crystalline structure held between two pennies and absentmindedly pocketed it.

Back home in Houston, later, when he unpacked he found the wrapped pennies. Inspired to experiment with the miniscule crystals, he stacked three page-hole protectors and corralled some crystals in the middle. What caught Fia­la’s attention is the fact that Windells, who has had the laboratory in El Paso for decades, always deliberately used dis­similar materials in the cathode of experiments, because isotopes of different elements can act as a diode, having a unidirectional electronic flow between them. Fiala had a copper penny and a copper-clad aluminum penny. Soon he had each shaved flat on one face and clamped over two of the crystals that were inside the page-hole protectors. He put a wedge across to gather any current. To his surprise, it lit a light-emitting diode (LED). Fiala measured .78 volts and nearly three milliamps of electrical output, using only two miniscule crystals. Whether at noon or midnight, it gave the same output. Got that? It doesn’t need visible light to produce power. It’s an ambient-energy cell.

“It’s like a solar cell, only (at midnight) the sun wasn’t out,” Fiala recalled when he spoke at the TeslaTech confer­ence. “We’ve only begun to do analyses on the electromagnetic spectrum that affects it.”

They tried hooking the crystal cells in series and that increased electrical output. The Texas researchers began making carbon wafers—cutting hexagonal depressions to hold the crystals, spraying their special conductive Nano Polymer between wafers and stacking a series-parallel “crystal cell.”

Before John Fiala met them, Mike Windell and Warren York had found a way to use a unique plasma discharge to modify crystalline structures. York said the local university verified that electron orbits subjected to it were altered in a way that would normally have required extreme heat or dangerous radiation. Are they instead working with emerg­ing scientific techniques? It seems so.

The knowledge base of these independent researchers is being put to use in the crystal cells. After they analyze factors, such as if one crystal will shield another’s effects, the team will know if they have the Holy Grail of energy. They have had cells working for more than 13 years. At this time the team is only talking about the possibility of pow­ering portable devices which draw little current, not electric heaters or stoves. However, Windell told me later in an e-mail that he believes it could be up scaled to multi-kilowatt devices.

They’ve certainly been relentless experimenters. In 1990 I saw one type of tiny solid-state cell lighting an LED in Windell’s workshop. It may have been what York refers to as the type that can’t be explained by conventional sci­ence—a crystal receiver that uses ambient energy (zero-point energy) as its source.

Fiala sums up the goal for their solid-state, crystal cells. “Imagine a pacemaker, microphone or laptop, that you never replace the batteries, ever again; the batteries go on forever. It would be arrogant to say we can do it…Right now, the research looks favorable.”

The same could be said for the experiments of other dedicated New Energy researchers. Might we see some self-running energy-generating devices next year?


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *