When this column appears it’ll be time to complete planning for the summer’s travels. How about taking in a couple of new-science meetings?
If you want an excuse to fly to Munich, Germany, on July 7 the Perendev company is launching Mike Brady’s electromagnetic motor. Check the web site www.perendev. com to see if it’s still happening.
Closer to home, July 14 – 17 is the U.S. Psychotronics Association (USPA) meeting, in Laughlin, Nevada. About 15 years ago while reporting for Explore New Dimensions magazine, I attended a USPA meeting back east, and my worldview quickly expanded once I got beyond being put off by the spooky-sounding name of the organization. See their web site www.psychotronics.org. Maybe you’re interested in the cutting edge of sound-healing or radionics. Gary E. Schwartz is keynoting the USPA meeting his co-authored book The Living Energy Universe is fascinating. Elizabeth Rauscher and Glen Rein are among the other Ph.D. scientist speakers I’m looking forward to hearing. Likewise for Peter Moscow’s presentation about David Farnsworth’s recent research project “the Etheric Analyzer,” which I previewed a couple of years ago but didn’t write about. The USPA website describes the equipment as capable of monitoring etheric energy from DC to 8GHz. “It can accurately, repeatably measure the resonances and therefore observe living energy in its actual form.”
Steve Elswick is again organizing a Tesla Tech conference, July 27-30 in the Salt Lake City area. There’ll be presenters I haven’t spoken with for many years, such as Mike Windell who’ll talk about his day/night “solar cell,” or Enhanced Energy Conversion Device, and Oliver Nichelson whose topic is Tesla’s fuel-less generator. Today there’s a lot of buzz about the Joe Cell which originated in Australia and is said to draw “orgone energy” into vehicle engines. Vernon Roth will bring us up to speed on that. Thorsten Ludwig is coming from Europe to tell us about the Moller Atomic Hydrogen Generator. And I’m pleased to see that Frank Germano will bring Viktor Schauberger’s concepts into a discussion of Tesla’s bladeless turbine. There are too many interesting speakers to mention them all in this preview. Check it out at the web site (www.teslatech.info).
A theme shared by many presenters at the upcoming Tesla Tech meeting is that machines have been invented that harvest energy from the space surrounding them. Speakers such as Peter Lindemann talk about using Radiant Energy and others refer to Zero Point Energy. Which brings up the question:
What is this sea of energy in which we live, move and have our being? Aether, akashic field, orgone, nothing…? Currently, many people refer to it but don’t all agree on a description, much less a label. Maybe until the explorers more thoroughly understand the qualities of that sea, and until their experiments become reliable products we can buy or are featured in ongoing exhibits in science museums around the world, the old fossil-fueled paradigm will continue to rule.
Moray King, however, is still doing his part to synthesize what can be scientifically explained about how to tap into zero-point energy… This year at the Tesla Tech meeting he’ll explain how three inventors, Ken Shoulders, William Hyde and the late Edwin Gray, activate the zero point energy somewhat similarly. He says high-voltage electric discharges in a series cascade may produce surprisingly energetic pulses—activated from zero-point energy.
Despite all this exciting research, until the possibility of tapping energy from the boundless source is acknowledged by academia, the kneejerk response “They can’t break the Law of Conservation of Energy” will dominate any mainstream media coverage of reported new energy inventions. It’s a frustrating time for frontier scientists. The media defers to career skeptics from mainstream academia and stops there.
National Geographic News, for instance, turns to the ubiquitous Dr. Robert Park for its take on zero-point energy and, perhaps unwittingly, steers its readers away from the truth. An article late last year in National Geographic News online was pegged on a Boris Volfson receiving U.S. Patent 6,960,975 for his design of an antigravity space vehicle. His craft, if built, would be powered by a superconductor shield that theoretically changes the space-time continuum to defy gravity. Physicists, of course, dismiss such an invention as an impossible device. Park warns that such dubious patents, as he calls them, aren’t limited to the antigravity concept. Explaining why that’s a problem, he points to an all-too-common reality—inventors can’t go out and find investors for a new invention until they get a patent and therefore show that if investors put money into a concept, somebody else can’t steal the idea.
Park’s point is that approving impossible-invention patents can make it easier for scam artists to con “if they can get patents for screwball ideas.” He has a point there, but if carried to the extreme that he tries to enforce, a new paradigm doesn’t have a chance at the patent office. Park has been known to get a patent examiner fired—the examiner’s offense was promoting non-conventional energy concepts. By the way, thanks to Dr. Thomas Valone—who is that patent examiner and is now reinstated in his job—for forwarding the cited article in his Future Energy e-news.
As if scripted, the National Geographic News article turns robotically to the history of “perpetual-motion machines.” Reading it spurs me to look into my older file boxes, flip through the folders and, sure enough, see similar articles scattered throughout the past 25 years in mass-media science magazines. Looks like the amusing stories of Rube-Goldberg-type deluded inventors and notorious cons have to be trotted out periodically in case any segment of the literate public hasn’t been imprinted with that particular amusing impression of non-conventional energy inventions.
However, many of today’s so-called impossible inventions are not violating or trying to violate the law of conservation of energy. Instead of mistakenly thinking their invention could return more energy than it consumed, today’s frontier scientists in the New Energy field are finding ways to build devices to interact with the previously undiscovered source of abundant energy. Most have a long way to go before the new science is understood and their prototypes work reliably, but the excitement of small successes keeps them going.
Park meanwhile is busy spreading his message. He says that the seekers of patents on what he persists in branding as “perpetual-motion machines” now try to circumvent court rulings and slip past overworked patent examiners by saying that they are capturing zero-point energy. Except for lumping today’s activities all in with yesterday’s perpetual-motion-seeking inventions, he got that right. However, if he is coaching popular-science writers on the basics of zero-point energy, they need a new coach. The National Geographic News article sends its readers off on some misdirected trajectory by its misinformed description of zero-point energy. The article does acknowledge that it is a real type of energy, but then defines zero-point energy as energy produced by the miniscule movements of molecules at rest. Produced by molecular jittering? I’ve been taught that zero-point energy—or whatever that background sea of energy is called—is the incredibly powerful source of the jittering!
If you swallow their take on zero-point energy, the conclusion of National Geographic News makes sense. Harnessing this energy is theoretically possible, the writer says, but at the moment the task seems practically impossible. So if that definition of zero-point energy were the truth of the matter, who would expect such a teensy amount of energy to power machinery? No one that I know. It would indeed be impossible.
But don’t be misled. Let me repeat. In the New Energy field, according to knowledgeable scientists inside that field of endeavor, the breakthrough inventions tap into the source of the jostling of molecules, not the miniscule motions themselves! Here’s an (imperfect) analogy: we don’t power windmills by harnessing them to the little motions of tree branches and grain stalks jiggling and swaying in the wind; we build windmills to tap into the wind itself.
You don’t have to look very far to find other strange definitions of zero point energy. A new e-book, the blood-soaked novel Blood and Oil, centers around a revolutionary energy invention. Publicity says the writer uses a pseudonym because he was an insider in the oil-and-gas industry. He did set scenes on oil rigs and in private clubs where apparently ruthless decision-makers sip brandy. Of course an action thriller exaggerates that the villains were nothing but evil. So I fast-forwarded to the scene where the invention is demonstrated. It’s a water-splitter made with fairly simple apparatus. The fictional dialogue says that what happens in the process is easily understood, but “why it occurs is something that the original research had not established.” Give the author points for reality on that—his fictional MIT scientist knew what happened but didn’t know why. The scientist’s notes speculated on something called ‘zero point energy’ as the cause, but hadn’t taken the speculative ideas further.
Then the author of the novel briefly sums up zero point energy: “until now, a theoretical field of energy that is speculated to lie between the nucleus and electron of an atom.” Hmmm. But at least he has his character say that even Einstein had speculated on the possibility that this other dimension of energy (my emphasis) is there and available to tap once we discover the means.
Aside from the diversity of stories about this mysterious energy, is zero-point energy the best moniker for the background energy of the universe? Quantum physicists call it zero-point because its effects are detected as motion inside molecules even at the solidly frozen state found at zero degrees Kelvin. But doesn’t the phrase “zero-point” sound negative and inadequate to describe the unlimited hidden light or whatever is powering the universe? “Zero” carries the baggage of “insignificant, zilch, nothing, nada.”
Today so much misinformation is splattered onto the Internet in the name of zero-point energy that some of its advocates turn away in embarrassment. More than one leading investigator has taken to calling it the virtual photon field or virtual photon flux instead of zero-point energy. Physicist Bernard Haisch’s phrase “a background sea of light” is more appealing than zero-point field, but he too adds the quantum physics descriptor for it— electromagnetic zero-point field of the quantum vacuum.
Even that view of the background energy’s qualities is controversial. Some scientists in the New Energy field say that trying to fit new science knowledge into the standard 20th century accepted body of science just won’t work. They question whether the energy embedded in the background is really electromagnetic, or if it’s off the scale of the electromagnetic spectrum as we know it, or something quite different such as a living but non-material field with an intelligence.
Does the sea of energy record information about the history of everything that’s ever existed in it? Ervin Laszlo, Ph.D., thinks so, and that standing waves are the mechanism. He prefers the term “akashic field” for describing the information field of the cosmos.
Don’t look to popular web site Wikipedia for an understanding of new-paradigm topics. Dr. Paulo and Alexandra Correa post, on their aetherometry.com web site, a scathing denunciation of that encyclopedia-online. In case you haven’t encountered the Correas’ before, look up the Heretical Scientist column in many issues of Atlantis Rising up to two years ago. In his column, the late Eugene Mallove often wrote about the Correas’ work. His courage was boundless. Conservative colleagues told him he’d gone too far-out but he persisted in reporting the truth—that he’d witnessed demonstrations of overunity (more output than input) from the Correas’ devices such as the Pulsed Abnormal Glow Discharge. He even experienced interactions between the invention and living-energy fields such as those from his hands. Paradigm-busting experiences!
The Correas’ concerns today include the millions of students who seem to follow that science-by-consensus (those who think Wikipedia is a reliable source of information about science)—youths “locked into a perpetual state of mindless screen-gazing.” I notice that the wicked ‘pedia removed the articles meant to come up when you type in the word “aetherometry.” I’m equally unimpressed with Wikipedia’s limited definition of zero-point energy—and its negative portrayal of those researchers who are asking if their inventions and experiments might be tapping into the background sea of energy.
By the way, you might still have time to catch the 25th annual Society for Scientific Exploration meeting June 8-10 in Orem, Utah. The conference is devoted to unorthodox findings in the natural sciences. See http://www.scientificexploration.org/.