Suppressed Inventions and Other Discoveries (69 page)

As far as NASA is concerned, I think that it is just a dog-and-pony show, while the real space program goes on behind the scenes. All of the authors mentioned in this review can be likened to the six blind men and the elephant. They all have an important piece of the puzzle which is being hidden from us. Let's put those pieces together and work towards a clear picture.

It is hard to make a definite conclusion with all this conflicting information. What is being covered up? It is possible, given the light of Rene's information on radiation and thermal problems that NASA never went to the Moon. However, there has been quite a bit of activity noticed on the Moon since the discovery of the telescope, and unmanned missions have sent back photos of boulders, obelisks and domes. Perhaps robot craft were landed and sent the photos necessary to fake the backgrounds of the manned missions, or perhaps there is another answer: That there is an advanced technology being used in space that us mere mortals have no access to. We can speculate that antigravity drives would create a protective field (like a personal Van Allen belt) which would shield those inside the craft from deadly radiation. If so, then manned missions may well have been undertaken, but for some reason or another NASA still felt the need to fake some of the informational output. All we can say for sure is that we Never Get a Straight Answer!

Section IV

The Suppression
of Fuel Savers
and Alternate
Energy Resources

A chemical war has been declared on our planet. As a species, we are at the end of our grace period, and we can no longer afford to spew out toxins from our industrial plants, and filth from our cars and trucks. If we are to somehow survive and carry on into the next century, to preserve a healthy planet for the future generations, we must conserve our resources. Better still, we must rely on alternate, clean forms of energy.

You need to look only as far as your driveway to find evidence of our abuse of existing energy resources. Conventional carburetion and fuel injection introduce a fine mist of gasoline droplets into the combustion chamber of your car. Some of this mist is vaporized, and that is what propels the pistons down their cylinders, driving the car along. But droplets merely burn—a waste of rapidly depleting fuel resources—and hydrocarbon and carbon monoxide emissions are the result. True vaporization is the answer to ridding the air of these poisons.

Charles Pogue knew that the most explosive part of gasoline is its vapor, and so invented a system that would induct the vapor from the air space above the fuel in a gasoline tank. He was thus able to get more than 200 miles per gallon on two-ton cars with eight-cylinder engines. Pogue held three basic patents for vaporizing carburetors he developed for General Motors in the 1930s. With such an outstanding outcome, one would think that these devices would be standard on today's automobiles.
Unfortunately for us, Pogue's facilities were destroyed in the late 1930s and he was wounded by gunfire in incidents that persuaded him to forego further development of h i s invention. However, the fundamental concept lives on in various forms. Honda cars, for example, now have sophisticated vaporizing technology enabling high mileage performance. In 1998 Mitsubishi announced the introduction of similar "lean burn" technology that involved vaporizing the fuel. Although none of these modern adaptations go as far as Pogue and some of his contemporaries, Future Perfect Ltd. of Auckland, New Zealand, is currently marketing an aftermarket vapor device that reputedly cuts hydrocarbon pollution by 60 percent.

So it is possible for us to use our fuel resources responsibly and economically. But this does not alter the reality that, despite our best efforts at conservation, our energy supplies are finite. Thus we must seek out abundant resources. And, truth be known, we have the technology to harness these resources for a cleaner, safer environment.

However, since the early years of this century, power and petroleum companies have been resolute in their denial that alternate energy resources exist. When faced with irrefutable proof, they have been even more resolute in their efforts to suppress devices that would allow us to harness this energy. The power of these corporations is such that, today, neither free energy nor hydrogen have a place in a world reliant on fossil fuels.

Science, far from being value-free or disinterested, as it likes to portray itself publicly, has always been an advocate for the dominant system in which it has an important stake. If the current fossil-fuel economy were to be disbanded, funds for pet research projects would rapidly disappear. Because alternate energy researchers are a perceived threat to the organizations which provide research funds, unconventional energy devices do not and cannot work, or are doomed as quackery—"in scientific opinion.''

Take, for example, the free energy idea, which contends that the earth is floating on (or in) a sea of energy. Space is not the vacuum that some would have our students believe in science classes. It is a veritable sea of energy. Indeed the very term "space" is almost a dead giveaway for the message that establishment science wishes to create. In reality, it is not as though matter has been created ex nihilo, it is that matter is created out of this sea of energy.

Nikola Tesla and Henry Moray were inventors who actually designed and built machinery that tapped into the free energy of space and harnessed it to drive electric motors, operate radios, and light electric light bulbs. Lester Hendershot invented a generator powered by the earth's magnetic field that achieved similar results. Like so many other inventors trying to make alternate energy a viable option, these men lacked "scientific" training, and worked independently in their small workshops. Scientists working for the establishment endeavored to discredit them, rationalizing along the lines that, as the inventors were not learned in academic science, they could not know what they were doing.

But suppression has not been limited only to free energy inventions. It extends to cover research into hydrogen as an energy resource as well. Francisco Pacheo successfully powered a car and a boat with the hydrogen energy of seawater. Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons shocked the scientific community when they announced that they had fused two hydrogen nuclei in a jar of heavy water. So it seems that water can become the major fuel for the world.

That's because when water's two constituent gases, hydrogen and oxygen, are combined with a spark they explode with tremendous force, producing super-abundant quantities of energy that is totally non-polluting. Then they recombine to form water. They can also be made to burn with a controlled flame for welding torches; for cooking; for steam generation; for power.

The media never shows you an exploding gasoline storage tank and editorializes that gasoline is an extremely dangerous fuel. But with hydrogen the dominant association foisted on the people is the Hindenberg "disaster." We are never told about the probable sabotage of a dirigible that was built with German thoroughness for detail and safety by people who were knowledgeable about the properties of hydrogen; nor it is ever really stressed that thanks to the fact that hydrogen is so incredibly light most of the explosion went up instead of engulfing the gondola ... and most of the passengers actually survived the blast.

We are at the most crucial time in recorded history in terms of not only our survival but our fulfillment as an intelligent, compassionate, and creative species. It is only now—when the need for a global transformation in energy usage is dire—that this technology is absolutely necessary. If necessity is the mother of invention, perhaps we can hope that it is also the mother of the invention's general acceptance.

Nikola Tesla:
A Brief
Introduction

Jonathan Eisen

Nikola Tesla was arguably the greatest inventive genius of the twentieth century, perhaps the greatest at least as far back as Leonardo da Vinci. What a shame and an indictment on our educational institutions that his name enlists barely a mention here and there in the hallways of learning.

When pressed, electrical engineers, who in fact owe their livelihood to Tesla, will tell you that Tesla invented alternating current and the "Tesla coil" which they play around with every so often when they have to. But they will probably not be able to tell you anything about his other 700 basic patents.

Or his ability to fetch electricity from the ambient atmosphere. Or his conclusion that the earth itself is a capacitor, and his experiments with transmitting electricity around the globe to virtually anywhere. Or his invention of the radio (well before Marconi), X-rays, the transistor and countless other inventions so far ahead of the times that even today they are still virtually unknown.

Even so, his bladeless turbine does seem to be making something of a comeback. And the Tesla Society is trying to interest the world in reviving some of his other lost inventions. He was convinced that "free energy" is a fact, rather than mere speculation, and over the years he has become something of a magnate for people working in the field.

Tesla's legacy is well known to a small-but-growing group of interested scientists and researchers. His astonishing story is recounted still: How he tore up his contract with Westinghouse in order for his alternating current electrification of America to proceed; how he had the rug pulled out from under him by J. P. Morgan when it looked as though his Colorado Springs experiments showed that wireless electricity transmission was feasible; how his Wardenclyffe tower on Long Island was destroyed when it seemed that his new system was about to supplant his old AC system, making free electricity available to everyone.

What a tragedy that a genius of such magnitude should die broke in his room at The New Yorker Hotel. For sometime afterward the FBI was quite interested in his papers, some of which dealt with new kinds of torpedoes, "death rays," and other inventions too numerous to mention here. As Chaney writes in her biography of Tesla:

Like Einstein he had been an outsider and, like Edison, a wide ranging generalist. As he himself had said, he had the boldness of ignorance. Where others stopped short, aware of what could not be done, he continued. The survival of such mutants and polymaths as Tesla tends to be discouraged by modern scientific guilds. Whether either he or Edison could have flourished in today's milieu is conjectural.

The example set by Tesla has always been particularly inspiring to the lone runner. At the same time, however, his legacy to establishment science is profound for his research, although sometimes esoteric, was almost always sweeping in its potential to transform society. His turbine failed in part because it would have required fundamental changes by whole industries. Alternating current triumphed only after it had overcome the resistance of an entire industry.

We must consider ourselves fortunate to have benefited from Tesla's alternating current technology, without which the world as we know it would not exist. How else might our lives differ today if formidable opposition had not halted his free energy research? Clearly, humanity would no longer operate according to a fossil fuel economy.

Tesla's Controversial
Life and Death

Jeane Manning

Electric power is everywhere, present in unlimited
quantities and can drive the world's machinery without the need of coal, oil, gas or any other fuels.
Nikola Tesla (1856-1943)

Colorado Springs, International Tesla Symposium, July, 1988—The man sitting next to me was in tears, shaking with quiet hiccuping sobs as if trying to be unobtrusive. He was rotund and wore thick glasses, but otherwise there was little to distinguish his appearance from that of two hundred other electrical engineers and other Tesla fans in the convention hall, still attentive to the scientist who had addressed them so eloquently and was leaving the podium.

It was not difficult to figure out why the man beside me was moved emotionally. The guest speaker, astrophysicist Adam Trombly, seemed to have choreographed his talk to lead to the moment. First he warmed up his audience by praising their hero. He reminded them that Nikola Tesla was the turn-of-the-century genius who fathered alternating current technologies, radar, flourescent tubes, and bladeless turbines. Tesla also presented the first viable arguments for robots, rockets, and particle beams. If society had followed up on the inventions Nikola Tesla envisioned at the turn of the century as he rode in a carriage near what is now this hotel, said Trombly, "we wouldn't have a fossil-fuel economy today. And J. P. Morgan, Rockefeller and a number of others wouldn't have amassed extraordinary fortunes on the basis of that fossil fuel economy."

FREE ENERGY FROM "VACUUM" OE SPACE

Trombly added that if Tesla's vision had prevailed, we would be dipping into a clean and abundant energy, like taking water from the well of space. After all, the theoretical basis for vacuum energy is now part of the physics literature:

. . . Not just in the literature of the fringe; it's been in Physical Review since 1975, Review of Modern Physics since 1962, and in European physics literature since the early 50s. Harold Puthoff in his May 1987 article in Physical Review D pointed out that in order for the hydrogen atom in its ground state not to collapse, it had to be absorbing energy from the vacuum.

The astrophysicist saw this scientific work as further vindication of Tesla. Trombly said that in the nineteenth century Tesla prophesied that people would someday hook their machinery up to "the very wheelworks of nature"—the energy of vacuum space.

Trombly noted that electrons themselves must spontaneously appear out of the background field of energy, or "we would have to invoke a rather Neanderthal concept that everything had its start in a certain moment." The speaker paused as if to let the audience catch his sarcasm, then added, "because we have embraced this [Big Bang] cosmology for the last couple of decades, we have some real problems."