Vol 2 March 2002       

Kandinsky's Im Blau
Free Energy:
Getting There,
Being There
The Implications of Making
This Happen in Our World
by Carol Hiltner


In this meticulously researched article, staff writer Carol Hiltner explores the scenarios by which we may bring free energy into reality in our world, and looks at the possibilities that will create for life on Planet Earth.

Besides reading books and hundreds of Internet articles, Carol interviewed Andrew Mount, who is carrying on the work of the late Bruce DePalma, celebrated new-energy journalist Jeane Manning, and solar expert Dr. Charles Gay of the Greenstar Company.

Carol's report to us concerns the implications of "new energy" for our world.

Free energy? What will that mean for our economy, society, government, and personal lives?

Can it indeed be free, ushering in an enlightened utopia? Or will it just precipitate a more refined ability to destroy ourselves?

Certainly, the impact will vary according to how the new energy is introduced and used.

What is the current situation?

One way to examine possible futures is to start with what's happening now.

Inventors of new energy technologies express hope that their inventions might be able to prevent the planet from destruction.[1] N-Machine inventor Bruce DePalma describes the Earth as "a floating island in space with only resource wars on the horizon as a foreshadowing of things to come." The challenge for the free energy inventor, he says, "is not to accomplish something that hasn't been done before, but to accomplish the same things without consumption of gas, coal, or oil, or the pollution of natural resources."[2]

Quite a variety of new energy technologies appear to exist, but for a number of reasons they have not reached the public domain.[3] Many people in the new energy field believe, frequently from personal experience, that the technologies are being suppressed.[4]

We interviewed energy journalist Jeane Manning, who wondered aloud, "Why, after twenty years, aren't any of these on the market yet?" And she answers her own question, "I think it's a matter of humanity being mature enough to be allowed these powerful technologies."

The new technologies fall into two basic categories: renewable (solar, wind, geothermal, and water power); and overunity, which appear to violate Newton's third law of motion, which says that for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction,[5] by putting out more energy than they take in.[6]

Technologies categorized as renewable are fairly well developed, yet in 1999, sources other than hydroelectric still represented less than 0.5 percent of generated energy globally.[7] Why?

Many new energy proponents point to a greedy stranglehold by the oil and coal industries[8] — oblivious to the environmental consequences.[9] A Greenpeace-sponsored report on the European electricity market states that it is "significantly distorted to the detriment of renewable energy generators."[10] There are allegations that oil and automotive companies have purchased promising renewable energy inventions and shelved them so nobody could use them.[11]

Widespread small-scale use of renewable energy is hampered by an absence of reliable, cost-effective, easy-to-use consumer products presented in such a way that the nontechnical general public would be motivated to adopt them.

According to a Greenpeace report on solar energy, "BP and Shell say they won't mass produce solar panels because they won't be able to sell them. Catch-22."[12]

Large-scale renewable energy projects are almost exclusively limited to hydroelectric dams, which in 1999 supplied about 2 percent of global energy production,[13], and which cause such significant environmental disruption that some are already being dismantled.[14]

And Jeane Manning devotes an entire chapter of her book The Coming Energy Revolution: The Search for Free Energy to the subject of harassment experienced by the new energy inventors that she profiled. She writes, "Some of it has been as subtle as a turned back, while some has been as overt as gunfire."[15]

Overunity technologies have additional hurdles. In an interview with Andrew Mount, he commented that "patents are being denied because overunity energy is theoretically impossible, as happened with Black Light — with the result that their research and development funding evaporated."[16]

And there are thousands of patents being declared secret in the interests of "national security." In these cases, inventors are issued what's called secrecy orders in which they are forbidden to divulge the technology or to use it further on pain of a 20-year prison sentence with no possibility of parole.[17]

Jeane Manning printed the text of one of these "gag orders" in The Coming Energy Revolution. "According to information obtained under the Freedom of Information Act by the Federation of American Scientists," she writes, "the Pentagon placed 774 patent applications under secrecy orders in 1991 — up from 290 in 1979. The government has standing gag orders on several thousand patents."[18]

With or without patents, funding to develop overunity technology has been scarce,[19] because of skepticism both on the part of the mainstream scientific community and of the the general public, and also because of the difficulty of getting consistent replication of results.[20]

The inability to consistently replicate might indicate fraud, bad science, or incomplete comprehension of the overunity causes and effects on the part of the experimenters.[21] Or — as has been postulated in the field of psychotronics — some of these effects may simply not occur in the presence of people who don't believe in them!

Andrew Mount mentioned this effect regarding his mentor, Bruce DePalma, inventor of the N-machine. "DePalma," Mount said, "spent years trying to make his device 'professor-proof,' as he put it, meaning so that any professor might be able to replicate his results. But DePalma still was not satisfied before he passed away in 1997."

Despite the difficulties, overunity research has slowly been gathering momentum, as isolated researchers and garage-shop tinkerers find each other through the Internet, and organize symposia and technical journals dedicated to the topic.[22]

In anticipation of the time that incubated technologies do begin to break through into mainstream society, many technical researchers have also written about potential social/economic/governmental implications of the widespread introduction of new energy.

From among the infinite possible scenarios, several overlapping themes emerge.

1. Possible future: self-destruction

There are two related routes to self-destruction: military and ecological.

The passing of the Cold War era has not, in a decade, resulted in a reduction of American "defenses." Quite the contrary, we have shifted our focus to terrorism, and are spreading weapons of war, and war itself, around the world with renewed vehemence. And we have found no shortage of recipients willing to use these weapons on their neighbors.[23]

For almost half a century, our atomic weaponry has been sufficient to destroy humanity, but the usefulness of atomic weaponry has been limited by its scale.[24] Rather, oil resources have been pivotal — and new energy technologies could free the military from that dependence and vulnerability.

Indeed, the Swiss new-energy community, Methernitha, refuses to reveal the secret of the free-energy device it possesses. The community published a letter in 1988 stating that "to present mankind with a free-energy device would literally mean to pour oil into a world which is already set on fire in too many places and domains of human life."[25]

In conjunction with computer technologies, ever more precise means of control could be implemented, leading us into a nightmare world such as George Orwell described in his classic book 1984.[26] But might we already be treading that path?

Efforts are made to convince Americans that the reason we wage war is to ensure the safety of our democracy.[27] However, according to historian Howard Zinn and MIT professor Noam Chomsky, waging war is inseparably interwoven with our intent to ensure the safety of our economic system, which depends on cheap natural resources, including labor, from all over the world.[28]

The negative consequences of our economic exploitation of the planet continue to become more evident — from asthmatic schoolchildren to the extinction of species.[29]

Lester Brown, President of Worldwatch Institute says, "The big question is whether we can muster the ingenuity to change — and do so rapidly enough to stave off environmentally-based economic decline."[30]

Many new-energy inventors fear that their technologies will be used, if not directly for military destruction, then simply to further our suicidal economic practices.[31]

This leads us to the next theme:

2. Possible future: gradual adoption though existing consumer channels (status quo)

This future presupposes that somehow ecological suicide is no longer so imminent, and perhaps even that the new technologies themselves will enable humanity to reverse the self-destructive trend — a desire frequently expressed by new energy proponents.[32] A central condition for this scenario is that this reversal, in itself, would require more enlightened policies and practices than we currently manage.

New energy researcher Dr. Charles Berg points out that "an innovative concept, as initially applied, usually results in only a small rise in productivity. However, immediately afterward, there follows a wave of rapid improvement in the implementation of the new concept."[33]

The main advantage to this approach is that social stability would be minimally disrupted. According to physicist and energy researcher Harold Puthoff, oil executives would welcome a new source of energy because they would make more profits by turning oil into plastics and pills than by selling oil as fuel.

And author and inventor Peter Lindemann The World of Free Energy, elsewhere in this issue, says, "I don't think the oil companies or the energy distribution companies are the problem. They just don't want to see things happen rapidly so that suddenly everyone is running a heat pump in their backyard; that would only cause world depression."[34]

Power companies and automobile manufacturers could gradually make their products more efficient and less expensive, and replace lost revenues through new products and services spawned by the the new technologies. Business planning by Royal Dutch/Shell "incorporates a recognition of the tremendous advances . . . in renewable energy technologies . . . that are expected to be made over the next two decades."[35] Other industries would probably follow suit, gradually shifting to ever more useful technologies as they became available.

Control of the economy would still be in the hands of governments, established social institutions, and large corporations. But could these institutions keep control if cheap and plentiful new energy were to become available? Perhaps not, conjectures Lindemann, which is part of the reason we don't yet have it.[36] Even with the looming depletion of oil resources, governments are motivated to suppress overunity energy technologies for their own preservation.[37]

Speaking to the issue of depletion, American oil production peaked in the 1970s, and global production is predicted to peak around 2010 and then drop off sharply[38] — so some replacement must be ready to be phased in during this decade:

  • to avoid giving undue advantage to an external enemy
  • to prevent individualized action (anarchy) within the country, and
  • to preserve income streams from taxation of current energy sources[39]

And the "money monopoly — the Wealthiest Families and their central banking institutions," Lindemann says, are opposed to free energy because it would thwart their efforts "to control all the capital resources of the world."[40]

It is predictable that the stock market would react negatively at the point that investors finally understood that the new energy was real — with possibilies ranging from a burp to full-out global depression.

The appearance of whole new employment sectors and the disappearance of others would cause displacement similar to that experienced when other major economic transitions have occurred. "Shifting to the new mode would not be easy for those who cannot change easily and quickly. This would produce great despair for many."[41]

In all probability, as observed by Pulitzer Prize winning feminist author Susan Faludi, support for those who are displaced would wane as the economy moved on, leaving the displacement as a personal problem of those unable to adapt.[42]

The general prosperity of the great American middle class could be expected to remain relatively stable — having this new source to sate its hunger for consumer goods. Maybe there would be sufficient surplus and enough will to start the process of more effectively addressing our social problems, both domestically and abroad.

Scientific and educational circles would be forced to adjust their stances as the new "anomalous" technologies proved themselves. As researchers revised the hypotheses and definitions of physics, and the phenomena were accepted as mainstream, new funding for this research would enable the refinement of the technologies to proceed rapidly.[43]

A major factor which is not addressed in this scenario is how we might repair the damage we have done to the global environment. Diminishing the likelihood of self-destruction would require an intentional turnaround that is uncharacteristic of the status quo.[44]

3. Possible future: radical adoption though existing consumer channels

This future implies the appearance of a bridge person or organization powerful enough or clever enough to sidestep the status quo while not upsetting it too much, and resourceful enough to introduce the technology in such a way that Americans would decide they can't live without it.

A living model for this could be the ongoing computer revolution, which has a similar history of backyard inventors. Startup computer companies frequently promised more than they could deliver (which is also a complaint against many new energy researchers) — perhaps to entice the investment of research capital and to prime the public's desire for the products.

With the computer revolution, once Microsoft got traction it dominated the market. Arguably, better products from other companies were brushed aside or partially incorporated through a variety of methods.[45]

As Microsoft has matured, and the money has accumulated, the company has become a major philanthropic force, albeit primarily in the field of information technology, which in turn promotes the company's products.[46]

As this perspective is applied to new energy technologies, it is quite likely that devices could be developed in and imported from Asia, where new ideas have been welcomed.[47] New energy researchers hold mainstream energy jobs.

Andrew Mount said, "Paramahamsa Tewari, who has been working on a version of the N-machine, is the Director of Projects for the Atomic Power Corporation of India."

Such radical introduction might well be actively opposed by existing governmental and financial systems (as discussed in the section above) — both to minimize volatility in the economy and to try to maintain control of the energy marketplace.[48]

A well financed and highly efficient new energy technology with low capitalization costs has the potential for astronomical profits, which in turn could cause a rapid shift in the global economy. With enlightened ownership, resources could readily be redirected toward global environmental cleanup and solution of humanitarian challenges.

Even so, a rapid changeover to new-energy would wreak havoc with the economy — displacing jobs, bankrupting energy utilities with large capital investments, and shifting sources of energy taxes.[49]

New-energy funder Bill Lawry says, "It would be the most revolutionary event — magnificent and catastrophic all at once. In the long run the change would be for the betterment, but in between there would be dislocation of a magnitude the world hasn't seen."[50]

Here again, the key caveat is the necessity for enlightened ownership willing to address the world's problems.[51]

4. Possible future: introduction into markets not currently served

Erwin Krieger is a retired magnetics research technician. In our interview, he said, "Had I a free-energy machine in my closet laboratory, I would pack it up and hie me to some power-poor Andean or African country".[52]

With fossil fuels financially out of reach for the impoverished populations of war-torn and/or developing countries, new energy technologies could be introduced without threatening the profits of existing energy suppliers. And the small scale and portability which can be expected with the new technologies make installation in remote areas viable.

In fact, this is already being done all over the world with renewable energy sources that are already available, such as solar.

For example, Charles Gay's company, Greenstar, installs elegantly designed, self-contained solar power plants in remote places. Of his work here in rural America, Gay told us, "Rather than rebuild poles and wires put up in the thirties, people are putting in solar and windpower systems out on the farms where the electricity is needed."

Greenstar helps people in the rural areas to access the financing needed for capital purchases of solar equipment. "In developing countries," Dr. Gay said, "solar is used today for rural electrification in at least 160 countries — and there are people who have ongoing, prosperous, money-making businesses in all of those countries in the solar worlds."

What if, as Edwin Krieger suggested above, we did just what he suggests and bring free energy to underdeveloped nations? "Of course," he said, "greed and politics being what they are, sooner or later the country in question would consider exporting cheap power to neighbors, and — need I continue? The introduction of a free-energy device would be an energy crisis."[53]

5. Possible future: radical adoption of energy available for free

What would happen if someone plunked down a free new energy machine where everybody could have access to it? Panic and chaos, probably, as all the existing oil-based world systems would be destabilized. It is easy to imagine an economic crash and global depression of unprecedented scope. Governments and bankers, in a desperate attempt to hold on to power, might initiate wars and economic instability.[54]

But it's not likely to happen suddenly. Peter Lindemann asserts that free energy technology has already been here for decades, and that governments and the money monopoly will "never allow an inventor or a company to build and sell a new energy machine to you. The only way you will ever get one is if you build it yourself. And," Lindeman suggests, "the availability of good information is rising rapidly."[55]

Renewable power sources (sun, wind, etc.), which don't face many of the obstacles of overunity sources, are still not widely adopted even in environments for which they are well-suited.[56]

6. Possible future: enlightened grassroots revolution

Descriptions of possible energy utopias abound in new energy circles — with free energy and transportation, restoration of the planetary ecology, locally controlled and sustainable communities, and cottage industries.

Bruce DePalma writes, "When all the natural forces of Nature have been harnessed, man is released from a state of slavery."[57]

Indeed, one such new energy powered community called Methernitha has existed in Switzerland for the past forty years. They began with renewable energy sources such as solar collectors, waterwheels, and windmills, and have since developed an overunity device.

However, the group refuses to divulge the secret to its device because it does not "want to be responsible for the consequences" (see Methernitha article elsewhere in this issue).

Many researchers believe that the new technologies will become available to humanity only after, or as a result of, an expansion of human consciousness — that it is our own unenlightened behavior that lies at the root of all the suppression and controversy.[59]

Additionally, these researchers are likely to be supportive of a grassroots revolution because, as both Jeane Manning and Andrew Mount told us, they believe in the possibility that this expansion of consciousness could occur for all of humanity as a result of some critical number of people making a shift — as in the "hundredth monkey" phenomenon.[60]

There also is a theory, explained to us by Andrew Mount, that "some of these technologies may not work in the presence of someone who is inimical to them — making them intrinsically and inextricably linked to the state of mind of humanity as a whole."

Possible futures — which will it be?

All this discussion eventually boils down to only two choices — suicide, or enlightenment. Everything in between is just the means to whichever end we choose.

It is therefore conceivable that all these futures could be realized, with each individual choosing and experiencing his or her own reality.

According to both Jeane Manning and Andrew Mount, some of the inventors in possession of technologies that are "undefinable" according to Newtonian physics have found explanation of the subtle energy concepts in mystical traditions and Eastern spiritual practices. And the laws governing these subtle energy forces are interwoven with the idea of enlightened consciousness.[61]

Most investigators seem to agree that all the nonsuicidal possibilities depend on a degree of human enlightenment beyond what we are currently exhibiting. Peter Lindemann concludes, "Unless something really changes on the social or political or economic level, the technology is irrelevant; it will not be allowed to happen."[62]

However, there is also the opposite possibility — that the arrival of clean, plentiful, inexpensive energy might precipitate an expansion of human consciousness by freeing us from the limitations of and conflicts around our current consumable power sources.

In any event, even if the energy is free, the shift to new energy sources will have its costs. Certainly, the major challenge facing humanity, even with the best technology, is to create a conscious path from where we are now to a sustainable global future.

By whatever means we get to a free energy society, how might it look once we do?

Bruce DePalma posits that "we must accept the condition of unemployment as the fulfillment of the nature of progress itself . . . If energy and transportation costs were zero, society would center around quality of life. Small communities would form in which all the basic life support requirements would be met locally.

"Money would still be required to purchase manufactured high-tech items, and could be earned through sale of community-grown or manufactured goods.

"A political administration would be elected to provide global planetary coordination for projects outside the scale of simple community organization."[63]

Jed Rothwell imagines indoor farming, where weather is not a factor.[64]

Theoretical conceptualist and zero-point scientist Dr. Tom Bearden envisions the use of robotic systems that can travel through matter for exploration of the interior of the earth and other planets, a medical technology that would enable physicians to "time-reverse diseased, damaged, or aged cells back to an earlier healthy condition," the elimination of mental disease, the reversal of aging, antigravity devices, unlimited space travel, and of course self-powered earthbound vehicles — all as products of the free energy revolution.

And Bearden sees a time when we will be able to load material into the human mind the way we now load software. When that happens, Bearden says, "All humans will be highly educated, extremely productive, and healthy. A scientific revolution will occur."[65] (See also Part II of Tom Bearden on Zero Point Technology elsewhere in this magazine.)

Jed Rothwell imagines that zero-point energy will be free "after a modest capital investment."[66]

"The source of free energy is inside us," writes Lindemann. "It is our spiritually guided intuition expressing itself without distraction, intimidation, or manipulation. It is our open-heartedness.

"Ideally, the free energy technologies underpin a just society where everyone has enough food, clothing, shelter, self-worth, and the leisure time to contemplate the higher spiritual meanings of life"[67]

And we will conclude with the words of renowned futurist Arthur C. Clarke, the man behind the movie 2001, A Space Odyssey:

"Indeed," Clarke said, "I would define a civilized man as one who can be happily occupied for a lifetime even if he has no need to work for a living. This means that the greatest problem of the future is civilizing the human race.

"But we know that already."[68]


Dr. Charles Gay (cgay@greenstar.org) is a co-founder of Greenstar Corporation, with expertise in solar cell manufacturing and international business. Greenstar helps people in rural areas to access financing for solar equipment. Dr. Gay was director at the National Renewable Energy Lab in Golden, Colorado, during the first Clinton administration.

Jeane Manning is a freelance journalist who since 1981 has traveled throughout North America and Europe to report on new-energy technologies. She is the author of the book The Coming Energy Revolution: The Search for Free Energy. Her articles and essays have appeared in numerous energy journals as well as several books. She also serves as a board member for two new-energy organizations.

Andrew Mount (andros@peacenet.org) was formerly the nine-year personal secretary and apprentice, and now trustee, for Bruce DePalma in his research of unconventional physics and natural philosophy (see the DePalma website at depalma.pair.com). He was subsequently assistant to the chairman of the International State Sciences Organization, isso.org. He also is a poet, musician, and founder of a youth-ministry called Butterfly Mountain (butterflymountain.com). With Father Charles L. Moore, Mount founded "Custodians of the American Dream," an organization articulating the egalitarian principles of true democracy (universalfrontiers.com).