The Tom Bearden



From: Tom Bearden
To:  (Correspondent)
Subj: Zero-Point Energy
Date: Original Tue, 25 Apr 2000 12:36:29 -0500

Modified and somewhat updated Dec. 29, 2000.

Dear (Correspondent),

On zero-point energy, one has as many viewpoints as there are scientists, with consensus on certain things. I can only give my own perspective largely gathered from others.

First, "zero-point energy" (ZPE) is a name for the EM fluctuation energy when all formal causal field motions ceases. ZPE may be only a fraction of the vacuum energy, and it is based on what most physicists estimate or calculate based on oscillator theory and quantum mechanics.  The vacuum in my personal view identically is a giant energy flux (which would seem to be experimentally proven), and hence it can be modeled as a giant scalar potential.  Note that the actual energy density is undetermined in this approach, and must come from experiments, etc. including those already in the literature such as the Lamb shift etc.

Assuming the vacuum to be identically a special kind of scalar EM potential, Whittaker's 1903 decomposition of the scalar potential can then be applied, to give an organized vacuum, completely deterministic, but also completely statistical since we do not have knowledge of all the incredible dynamics, observation, measurements, etc.  This moves us, however, well away from the "random" notion of QM (it might surprise you that there does not exist an acceptable definition of "randomness"!)  and into the fold of chaos. Indeed, QM itself is already known to somehow be wrong (it's called the "missing chaos problem!) because one cannot integrate its assumed random changes at the tiny level and get the macroscopically ordered universe we observe and live in. Integration of randomness just yields more randomness!  This is just one minor illustration of the formidable problems still remaining in the foundations concepts of our present physics.

It turns out that every little dipole or potential is in fact a true negative resistor of great power, pouring out enormous observable energy continuously, and indefinitely or for so long as that dipole or potential exists.  When all the energy pouring out of that dipole is accounted (it is not accounted in present EM theory, since Lorentz arbitrarily discarded it), the amount of energy outpoured is mind-boggling.  That component that Lorentz discarded—in any field/charge interaction—that does not interact with the charge and thus does not get diverged or "collected, is one of the things that was arbitrarily altered about a century ago by the founding electrodynamicists. Since then, in science we have all been taught to calculate the reaction cross section of the field or potential with a unit point static charge, and then erroneously call that reaction cross section the magnitude of the field or magnitude of the potential at that point. This is like having a fixed standard rock on the bottom of a rushing river, with a small streamlining swirl of the water deviated around the rock, and calling that little "swirl around" deviated bit of the water the "magnitude of the river at that point". It is not that at all; it is the magnitude of the small amount of flow diverted from the river flow, not the river flow itself. At best, it may be taken as an indicator of the intensity of the river's flow at that single point.

In fact (as will be in our next paper, in the coming issue of Journal of New Energy), ["Giant Negentropy of the Common Dipole," JNE, 5(1), Summer 2000, p. 11-23] a significant portion of the vacuum energy of the universe is happy to completely reorganize itself  negentropically, at a single touch, into a beautiful free flow of energy for us, with the reorganization of its energy moving out at the speed of light in all directions from that little touch.  Further, as long as we leave the "touch" alone once it has been made, nature will continue that giant free flow of EM energy indefinitely. And this is a deterministic reorganization of the energy, not a statistical one.  Simply making the tiniest dipolarity—a little dipole or a little potential (voltage) accomplishes that—is easily shown to cause this massive negentropic reorganization of significant vacuum energy by application of the "infamous" Whittaker paper of 1903 which continues to be resoundingly ignored by most electrodynamicists.

You see, the dipole is a broken symmetry in the 3-space energy flux of the vacuum, speaking in particle physics terminology. This means that the energy flow (and energy itself) is no longer conserved in 3-space. Instead, it is now conserved in 4-space—in spacetime instead of just space. So in fact nature sets up a vast inflow of energy to the dipole from the time-dimension (from the complex plane). The spin of the charges comprising the dipole transduces that absorbed complex plane EM energy into real space, and emits it in all directions in free space. So the flow of energy is conservative in four dimensions, but not in three. There is no input of this energy at all in 3-space, but only from the 4th dimension. In electrical engineering terms, the dipolarity is receiving pure reactive power, transducing it to real power, and emitting the real EM power in all directions in 3-space.

Note that observation is 3-spatial; we only measure or detect what is going on there in 3-space. Further, this is a negentropic reordering of some of the vacuum's energy. Nature happily relaxed to the more fundamental 4-symmetry in energy flow, once we untied her feet a little bit in 3-space by "breaking" the additional requirement for energy conservation in 3-space.

In profound gratitude to us for allowing her to break 3-symmetry a little and "go negentropic" by making that little dipole or "porthole", Nature gratefully rewards us with an incredible outpouring of energy through that little dipole and out into all our space, filling all space and speeding outward at the speed of light.  This great energy flow (I call it "dark" energy because they did not know what to do with it once Heaviside discovered it, and Lorentz just arbitrarily discarded almost all of it a century ago!) mostly misses any circuit attached to the dipole, and is just ignored.  Poynting never even realized it, but only used just the tiny, tiny little fraction of that enormous Heaviside energy flow that strikes the surface charges and gets diverged into the wires to power the circuit.  Poynting assumed from the beginning only that component of the energy that enters the circuit, never considering at all that huge part that does not even strike the circuit, does not get diverged, and is just wasted.

Heaviside (who independently discovered energy flow through space, simultaneously with Poynting), corrected Poynting's work (Poynting got the direction wrong, even for the bit that he captured) and also captured in his expanded energy flow theory that additional nondiverged energy flow component that Poynting had completely missed.

Now in those days (the 1880s) there were only about three dozen electrodynamicists on earth. Further, the full energy flow shown in Heaviside's expanded theory is enormously greater—e.g., pouring from the terminals of a generator or a battery—than anything the user input to the generator, or any chemical energy the battery had inside it initially. Because the size was so enormous, Heaviside spoke very cautiously of that flow in terms of the "angle" it made with respect to the conductor and to the perpendicular to the conductor. Heaviside had no notion of what could possible be the source of that huge energy flow, and was not about to be attacked and savaged for suggesting a gross violation of the conservation of energy law.

The great Lorentz was profoundly perplexed.  He understood both Poynting's theory and Heaviside's theory, and the difference between them. But how on earth could one explain the source of such a  mind-boggling, colossal  torrent of energy pouring out of the terminals of every battery and every generator—far, far more than was input to even a billion generators or present in a billion batteries! Certainly nothing like that rate of energy flow was captured by the circuit! In fact, the feeble circuit could not even produce as much energy in the load to power it, as the operator himself input to the shaft of the generator.

So Lorentz originated a little trick that discarded the huge  "Heaviside" nondiverged component that misses the circuit, and retained only that tiny Poynting fraction that struck the circuit, was diverged into the wires and powered the circuit.  In a simple circuit, he discarded about 10exp13 times as much energy as he retained.

Of course the energy than enters the circuit is also the energy that is later dissipated from the circuit!  So that component will match the dissipated energy that our instruments measure—we universally measure dissipation!

We have corrected all that after a century of rather benign neglect by the scientific community, and we cited the references (by Heaviside, Poynting, and Lorentz) where all this was done.  We cited references to show that the same little trick originated by Lorentz is still being universally used today, and it is still arbitrarily disposing of that extra Heaviside nondiverged energy flow component from any accountability. We also nominated the "dark energy"—that neglected nondiverged energy flow around every field/charge reaction— as the potential cause of the excess gravity out there in the spiral arms of spiral galaxies and holding those arms together.

The Bohren experiment, easily done by any university, and thoroughly replicated, experimentally proves the presence of this "dark energy" that Lorentz arbitrarily discarded and that all electrodynamicists ignore.  Simply by resonating the intercepting charges, one extracts 18 times as much energy from the same EM field energy input as one is inputting via the conventional "Poynting" energy flow theory considering the standard static charge reaction cross section.  Conservation of energy of course holds, and the excess energy collected on the resonant charge is just captured from that accompanying dark energy (the Heaviside component) that misses the static collecting particle.  Resonating the particle just makes it sweep out a larger geometrical reaction cross section and intercept some more of the Heaviside dark energy that is there but ignored.

"Resonating the intercepting charge" is just one way in which asymmetrical regauging—freely changing the potential energy (collected energy) of an EM system—can be accomplished.

So yes, there is no technical barrier whatsoever to producing self-powering EM systems.  Several inventors have produced systems for years.  With Bedini's permission, I released the details of how to create a negative resistor in a common lead acid storage battery and use it in a battery-powered system which will power its load and recharge its battery as well, with the excess energy coming directly from the vacuum interaction.  Any university lab can replicate the Bedini process if they wish.  Bedini now has one year from the date of open publication to file his patent.  But this is one COP>1.0 process that can be reproduced.

Without going into the details, I can assure you from my own personal experience that there is and has been for decades a ruthless suppression of legitimate free energy researchers and inventors.  Some researchers have been killed, some have disappeared, some have been given "the offer they cannot refuse", etc.  Some have been deliberately deviated into deliberately designed "games", with the scenarios and players designed to hamper, divert, derail, etc. All legitimate overunity systems to date have been stopped.  Previously we have obscurely released some details on the "gaming" that occurs and how it works.  This well-honed activity gets most inventors and o/u researchers snarled in knots which cannot be untangled, or even gets them into jail. It's been very effective. Having been the brunt of many such games—and of several ongoing at present—I have some hard-won experience in that area.

We went to the Russians to release the Bedini Process and also the background theory of self-powering systems.  In addition, Hal Fox—one of the truly noble scientists diligently pioneering free energy systems—very kindly published the Bedini paper as well as the Giant Negentropy paper and others. If and when overunity systems ever do reach the market, scientists such as Hal Fox and Eugene Mallove will have played a major role in paving the way.

The simple existence, for so many decades, of Letokhov's work (published in several major journals) and of Bohren's experiments (and many others, including replications) should long ago have triggered a massive onrush of the scientific community into the COP>1.0 electrical power system area.  Eerily, we've had Nobel Prizes awarded (e.g., to Prigogine) for proving conclusively that any open system far from thermodynamic equilibrium is permitted to (1) self-organize, (2) self-oscillate or self-rotate, (3) output more energy than we ourselves input, (4) power itself and a load simultaneously, and (5) exhibit negentropy.

It does not require any great genius to examine classical electrodynamics (e.g., the Lorentz-regauged Maxwell-Heaviside equations) and see that (1) the active vacuum interaction with the Maxwellian system does not appear in the model, (2) therefore a broken symmetry in that interaction also does not appear in the model, and (3) the Lorentz symmetrical regauging effectively removed all open Maxwellian systems far from equilibrium with their active environment, thereby arbitrarily discarding all legitimate COP>1.0 Maxwellian systems.

It does not require any great genius to see that the field, defined as force per unit charge, cannot exist in the massless vacuum, since mass is a component of force. It also requires no great shake to grasp that the hoary old notion of a separate force acting upon a separate mass is a non sequitur. It also requires little application of thought to see that merely arguing that, in massless space, the field remains but the force goes to zero, is also a non sequitur, though most electrodynamicists still use that evasive ploy.

Further, one of the most important—and perhaps the most important— theory today is gauge field theory, which either has been applied or is being applied to most major areas in physics, including electrodynamics. One of the axioms of gauge field theory is gauge freedom, which in electrodynamics simply means you can freely change the potential of a system at will, and thereby freely change the system's potential energy at will. Gauge field theory, however, does not show the source of this excess energy which freely appears and collects in the system when the system is regauged to increase its potentialization. Obviously, that energy must come from outside the system—and in short, from the active vacuum environment.

Well, if I can cause an electromagnetic system to suddenly have and take on excess energy whenever I wish to, then I should be able to find a way to freely or nearly freely discharge that excess free potential energy into an external load and do work with it. Again, I can certainly discharge it, for that is just another regauging, and I'm free to regauge anytime, anyway I wish, for free. So the principle of gauge freedom, in the most important forefront theory we have, already clearly prescribes overunity electrical power systems, if I can carefully control and direct the free regauging (changes of the potential) by proper switching, etc.

Yet this "obvious to the most casual observer" overunity capability does not appear in any of our present conventional electrical power systems. Since the gauge freedom principle is well-established, then our present universal COP<1.0 electrical power systems must be self-limiting due to some specific part of the system design. In short, since we do regauge the system to potentialize it initially, but still do not achieve overunity, then self-limitation to negate COP>1.0 must be applied by the system during its discharge through the load of the excess excitation energy freely acquired during the initial potentialization of the system (the initial regauging).

Actually it is the use of the ubiquitous closed current loop circuit—where the charge carriers all have the same m/q ratio—that imposes this self-limitation to COP<1.0 of our present electrical power systems. The Bedini system, e.g., uses a closed loop circuit split into two sections—one between the plates inside the battery and the other from the outside of the plates out into and through the external circuit—where the two sections have different charge carrier types having radically different m/q ratios. Hence the relatively sluggish current of massive ions between the battery plates inside the battery can be dephased from the very agile electron current from the outside of the plates through the external circuit. In short, the ion currents can be in battery charging mode while the electron currents are in "powering the external circuit" mode, and no law of physics or thermodynamics is violated. The dramatic difference in current response times can also be exploited to produce "pile-ups" of electrons, thus producing potentials at the plate interfaces which are much higher than the battery's design voltage. Since a potential in a circuit propagates in both directions, this excess potential overpotentializes both the ions in charge mode and the electrons in the external circuit in load-powering mode. Consequently, the circuit delivers more energy to the load and dissipates it there, than does a normal circuit without dephasing between multiple current sections. Simultaneously the circuit delivers more energy to recharge the battery than normal charging. The result is a self-powering system which powers its load and recharges its battery, and runs indefinitely under load.

So what else is needed to trigger a vast onrush of scientific work?  Unfortunately the classical electrodynamicists—including in our National Science Foundation and National Academy of Sciences—have not yet included in their theory the active vacuum interaction with every EM power system, much less the broken symmetry in the vacuum flux of the source dipole connected to the terminals of the generator or the battery. For nearly a half century it has been proven both theoretically and experimentally in particle physics (with a Nobel Prize awarded, e.g., to T. D. Lee) that the dipole is indeed a broken symmetry in the fierce energy flux of the vacuum. What "broken symmetry" in that flux means is that some of the virtual energy flux continuously absorbed by the dipole charges is not re-radiated back to the vacuum in virtual form. Instead, it is coherently integrated into the observable state and re-radiated back to the vacuum as real, observable, usable EM energy. But sadly, this well-known fact in particle physics is still absent from electrodynamics nearly 50 years after its discovery and confirmation.

This has led to a major non sequitur in electrical power system engineering and theory: the erroneous notion that the chemical energy of the battery or the shaft energy input to the generator actually transduces some of its energy into EM energy and places that EM energy flow onto the external circuit. That is totally untrue, and every textbook in the Western world is wrong in that respect.

Batteries and generators do not power their external circuits!  Absolutely none of their internal energy is transduced and placed on the external circuit as EM energy flow. All batteries and generators do with their available internal energy—input shaft energy to the generator, and available chemical energy in the battery—is dissipate it internally upon their internal charges to force the charges apart and produce the source dipole (forcing the positive charges to one side and the negative charges to the other) connected to the terminals.  Other than in internal losses, all available energy dissipated by the generator or by the battery is dissipated on those internal charges to make that source dipole. And that is all that generators and batteries do! Generators and batteries make source dipoles; they do not power circuits. They merely establish the widget (the dipole) that extracts energy from the seething vacuum, transduces it into usable EM energy, and pours it out of the terminals and into space surrounding the external circuit conductors.

The source dipole, once made, powers the external circuit. None of the input shaft energy to the generator, or available chemical energy in the battery, is used to provide power to the circuit.

But this does not appear in EM theory. Once the source dipole has been made, one must momentarily discard the sadly deficient classical power system theory and go to particle physics.  That dipole, once formed, extracts enormous energy from its violent exchange with the active vacuum because of the dipole's proven broken symmetry in that exchange

So the dipole pours out an enormous torrent of EM energy, gushing out of- the terminals of the battery or generator, and filling all space around the external connected circuit. Only a tiny little "sheath" or "boundary layer" of that vast flow—a sheath right on the surface of the external conductors—strikes the surface charges in the wires and gets diverged into the wires to power the circuit.  All the rest of the torrent of energy pouring out of the terminals of the battery or generator—and coming from the vacuum via the broken symmetry of the dipole—just misses the circuit entirely. The Heaviside nondiverged component of that torrent of energy flow has been arbitrarily discarded for more than a century now, following Lorentz's little integration trick which selected only that small Poynting diverged component that strikes the circuit and enters it.

The foregoing is rigorous, and we have previously cited the papers in the literature to prove it.  So the problem is not in producing all the free energy one wishes, anywhere, anytime, literally for peanuts and very easily.  There is absolutely no technical energy-production problem!  There is only a technical energy flow interception and collection problem—which is quite another story. This latter is a major unsolved problem because our scientific community has never formally addressed it.

So there is a very real problem in the mindsets of our scientists who still neglect or refuse to incorporate into the hoary old 136-year-old electrodynamics significant discoveries already proven for a half century in particle physics.

Note that it takes as much expenditure of energy to restore the source dipole in a generator or battery as it does to destroy it. So whatever amount of energy is used by the system to destroy the source dipole, requires that at least that much dipole-restoring energy (in a lossless generator or battery) be dissipated from the chemical energy of the battery or from the internal energy of the generator after input of shaft horsepower to it.

Eerily, every electrical circuit and every electrical load is—and has always been—powered by EM energy extracted directly from the vacuum by the source dipole. Yet we have all been taught that to extract and use EM energy from the vacuum is terribly, terribly difficult, and that it will be perhaps a century before we are able to do that. Yet all the while, that is all that any EM system we ever built has done.

We design all our conventional systems to destroy their source dipoles continually, using half the free energy intercepted and collected in the circuit from the energy flow in space around the circuit. The other half of the collected circuit energy is used to power the external circuit's loads and losses, as is easily shown. Since less than the half the collected energy gets to the load to power it, while half the collected energy is used to destroy the dipole, then at least as much chemical energy (battery) or input shaft energy (generator) must be dissipated to restore the dipole. The result is that these inane power systems our engineers and scientists build for us destroy themselves (their vacuum-energy extracting function) faster than they power their loads.

All the coal, oil, natural gas, etc. ever burned, and all the nuclear fuel rods ever used, and all the hydroelectric dams ever built, have directly added not one single watt to the power line.  Not one!  What all that does and has done is to furnish the energy continually required to continually restore the source dipole in the generator—which dipole our engineers and scientists have deliberately designed their rather inane systems to continually destroy, faster than they power their loads.

That is heartbreaking.  There are simply no words to describe the appalling insanity of it. There is no rational reason at all to continue to rape and destroy the entire biosphere and the planet, by such utter nonsense.  Our entire scientific community has had its head firmly fixed in the distant past in the electrical energy field.  The community is actually proud of its accomplishments in helping to destroy the planet, while totally ignoring its own proof (in particle physics) that vacuum energy powers everything anyway.

Also sadly, the environmental community is scientifically naïve and has been very easily fooled in this entire electrical energy area. The environmentalists have been led to believe that our scientists are already doing everything that can be done in electrical power system theory, and that our electrical power systems are tributes to the great perfection of the power generating art. Nothing could be further from the truth. Not a single electrical engineering textbook even contains a true development of what actually powers every electrical circuit. The energy flow theory is fouled, and most of our engineers and scientists think that the little Poynting energy flow component the external circuit catches, is all there is available to catch. None realize that a nominal circuit catches only about one ten trillionth of the energy flow actually pouring out of its source dipole.

To reiterate:  There is not now and there never has been an energy problem! One can extract from the vacuum, anywhere in the universe and easily and cheaply, incredible amounts of usable EM energy flow at will. A simple one-watt battery, e.g., actually outputs enough energy flow rate to power all electrical loads in the United States, could it be intercepted, caught, and dissipated in the loads to power them. Nature has given us available electromagnetic energy beyond our wildest dreams, free for the taking. We just have to learn how to catch it efficiently, and use lots more of it, instead of just wasting such an appalling amount. So yes, there is now and there has always been an energy flow interception, collection, and usage problem.

Well, which end of the problem is our scientific community actually working on? They are not working on the interception, collection, and usage problem at all. Instead, they are working on increasing the shaft horsepower of the generator, building batteries that store more chemical energy, burning the hydrocarbons a little more efficiently and cleaner, etc.

So the scientific community has actually been rather totally diverted from the real electrical energy problem—which is collecting and using more of the enormous EM energy every source dipole already extracts from the vacuum and pours out freely. The entire Department of Energy spends not a single dime on that problem. Neither does the National Science Foundation, or the National Academy of Sciences. Neither does a single university in the United States. Neither does any of the great National Laboratories in the U.S. Our scientific community has not even recognized the nature of the real problem heretofore.

So much for the state of the art of our "modern" EM power systems and EM power systems science and technology.

Now all science is patronized. Someone must pay for the laboratories, the equipment, the salaries of the scientists, and the rest of the bills. It follows straightaway that, whoever controls the patronage (the money, in other words), also controls what will be done in the research. It's the old golden rule; he who has the gold, rules.

Once in awhile, even the scientists in their humorless prose essentially admit the problem. Speaking of the more progressive research agencies, in his "The Nature of Discovery in Physics," Am. J. Phys., 69(1), Jan. 2001, p. 36-37, Douglas D. Osheroff says it this way"

"…the requirement for frequent progress reports and grant renewal proposals makes it hard for people to change the subject of their research, or to pursue anything which is not likely to produce results in a two-year time frame. If investigators fear that their grants will not be renewed unless they produce a large number of new publications, they will focus on those things they know how to do and feel fairly confident will yield results in a timely manner. Worse still, this pressure simply does not produce the atmosphere in the lab most conducive to the training of bright graduate students. …too often graduate students are being treated like technicians, not scientists. … in addition, most individual investigator research grants today are rather lean, and do not provide the flexibility to allow investigators to pursue both the physics which they have outlined in their proposal (typically fairly safe incremental research) and physics which lies beyond the heart of their research programs."

So if one wishes to know why our scientists do the type of research they do, and avoid the kinds of research they avoid, one must look at the money trail, the grants, the requirements placed on the scientists, the pressure to get more grants, the pressure to obtain patents for the research institution, etc. Specifically, one must look at how most scientists are rewarded, and for doing what. One must also examine what they are chastised for. By looking at those two "driving factors", one can then see the hidden intent shaping how the scientific community allows the research funds to be spent, and the results published.

There is an old adage in police investigation work: Follow the money trail, look for the motive, and see who stands to gain.

In science today, the scientist can be handsomely rewarded for defending the status quo and doing it vigorously.  On the other hand, a scientist  is attacked, vilified, suppressed, hounded, and drummed out of a job if he or she wishes to change the status quo in electrodynamics, particularly in the classical electrodynamics used to design and build electrical power systems. This is true, even though the present EM model is well-known to be seriously flawed, as pointed out by scientists such as Feynman, Wheeler, Bunge, Lindsay, Margenau, etc.  This continuing defense of such a flawed century-old model is well-orchestrated by the hidden forces behind the scenes (and behind a couple hundred interlocking international corporations, etc.) who have controlled science policy in this energy area for decades.  Winston Churchill had a name for them; he called them the "High Cabal". There are actually quite a few of these powerful, hidden financial interests, not just a single monolithic consortium.

In general, in my view these hidden fellows have also laid out and launched the greatest economic rip-off in history, to the tune of several trillion dollars a year (yes, that's with a tr ---)  planned for this century.  And incidentally involving the greatest pollution and destruction of the biosphere ever imagined.  Even more incredibly, they successfully tricked the naïve environmentalists into helping them set it all up!

Anyway, in my firm opinion and from my own direct personal experiences (some of those experiences curl one's hair!), there is no question of the massive and unrelenting suppression of this area for decades, indeed, starting from the time of Tesla's suppression at the turn of the century.  Further, there is also no question of the intense disinformation campaign also involved, and of the vilification and character assassination, entrapments, etc. directed against the legitimate researchers and inventors in this field.

So you have my personal vote for your opinion as stated.  XXX ****  is a fine scientist and a good friend.  I suspect he wishes to mollify the approach to be not so harsh, and not offensive to conventional scientists. Certainly that is worthy.  My own approach is sometimes a little too blunt. 

The "cheap oil" availability curve is peaking worldwide now and then it will decline hereafter.  We still have oil, of course, and other hydrocarbons, but they will increasingly be obtained and furnished more and more expensively. At the same time, the "world electrical power needs" curve is steadily rising and will continue to rise.  Gasoline at the pump will probably reach $5 or so per gallon in 8 to 10 years from now, and it will reach $20 per gallon ten years thereafter. Heating oil and natural gas are dramatically increasing this winter in the United States, as is electrical power in many places. Our economy moves on large trucks, and as their fuel costs increase, the cost of everything increases. At about the $5 per gallon level for gasoline, the entire economy of the Western world (and of other parts of the world also) will collapse.  The crumbling will begin earlier, of course, and there will be a steady build-up of intense pressure on the nations of the world as their national economies come under greater and greater energy cost stress while their need for electrical energy increases. History clearly shows that, as such intense pressure on nations rises, their conflicts and wars also rise.

The earth will increasing be a ticking time bomb, waiting to explode.

So about a year or two ahead of the "full economic collapse", we will be in a period of such increased conflicts between nations, and with those conflicts increasing in intensity and sophistication. According to Defense Secretary Cohen, some 25 nations now have weapons of mass destruction (WMD) such as nuclear missiles, nuclear bombers and submarines, and/or chemical weapons, biological weapons, etc. and more nations are acquiring them. The Secretary also alluded to electromagnetic weapons of great power, being used to engineer the weather, initiate earthquakes, etc.—almost certainly referring to the longitudinal EM wave interferometry weapons now possessed by seven or eight nations. Here is his exact statement:

"Others [terrorists] are engaging even in an eco-type of terrorism whereby they can alter the climate, set off earthquakes, volcanoes remotely through the use of electromagnetic waves… So there are plenty of ingenious minds out there that are at work finding ways in which they can wreak terror upon other nations…It's real, and that's the reason why we have to intensify our [counterterrorism] efforts." Secretary of Defense William Cohen at an April 1997 counterterrorism conference sponsored by former Senator Sam Nunn. Quoted from DoD News Briefing, Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen, Q&A at the Conference on Terrorism, Weapons of Mass Destruction, and U.S. Strategy, University of Georgia, Athens, Apr. 28, 1997.

Note that the Secretary did not speak the words placed in square brackets.

Just prior to the terrible collapse of the World economy, with the crumbling well underway and rising, it is inevitable that some of the weapons of mass destruction will be used by one or more nations on others. An interesting result then—as all the old strategic studies used to show—is that everyone will fire everything as fast as possible against their perceived enemies. The reason is simple: When the mass destruction weapons are unleashed at all, the only chance a nation has to survive is to desperately try to destroy its perceived enemies before they destroy it. So there will erupt a spasmodic unleashing of the long range missiles, nuclear arsenals, and biological warfare arsenals of the nations as they feel the economic collapse, poverty, death, misery, etc. a bit earlier.  The ensuing holocaust is certain to immediately draw in the major nations also, and literally a hell on earth will result.  In short, we will get the great Armageddon we have been fearing since the advent of the nuclear genie. Right now, my personal estimate is that we have about a 99% chance of that scenario or some modified version of it, resulting.

So in my view we have about three years from now, counting, in which we must have changed the scientific mindset and be in a massive production of self-powering electrical power systems taking their energy from the vacuum. Otherwise, we will have overrun the "point of no return" to Armageddon—an Armageddon of our own making and our own ignorance, and largely contributed to by our organized scientific community. Science has the power to save us or destroy us, and right now it is bent upon the "business as usual" course that will lead to our destruction.

The entire scenario will also occur even earlier, if certain other trends—several, covering them would require a separate paper—continue.  Anyone can see the Middle East is a powder keg, but there are other powder kegs simmering away as well. As one example, suppose China attacks Taiwan in three years. One sees the point.

With its defended mindset, unless it dramatically and quickly changes, the present U.S. scientific community will carry us right on over the precipice, all the while protesting that it is practicing "good science" and continuing to attack, harass, delay, and hamstring those very scientists who might have turned the tide.

Let me be very clear about this. The rejection of new innovations by the scientific community is well-known to any historian of science; it is the rule rather than the exception. Even Sigmund Freud remarked on it in these words:

"There are three steps in the history of a great discovery. First, its opponents say that the discoverer is crazy; later that he is sane but that his discovery is of no real importance; and last, that the discovery is important but everybody has known it right along."

Roger Bacon said it this way in the 1200s:

"Most secrets of knowledge have been discovered by plain and neglected men [rather] than by men of popular fame. And this is so with good reason. For the men of popular fame are busy on popular matters."

And let it be known that the delivery of mass destruction weapons against American cities and population centers is already solved. The terrorists teams and the weapons—including clandestine nuclear weapons—are already infiltrated and on site now, waiting to be unleashed. For the nuclear weapons, simply listen to Lunev, the highest ranking defector from the Russian GRU we have had:

"Though most Americans don't realize it, America is already penetrated by Russian military intelligence to the extent that arms caches lie in wait for use by Russian special forces — or Spetznatz." [Stanislov Lunev and Ira Winkler, Through the Eyes of the Enemy: Russia's Highest Ranking Military Defector Reveals Why Russia Is More Dangerous Than Ever, Regnery, Washington, D.C., 1998], p. 22.

Lunev, ibid., p. 26 even tells some of the methods the Russians used to bring in and stockpile clandestine nuclear weapons in the United States:

"It is surprisingly easy to smuggle nuclear weapons into the United States. A commonly used method is for a Russian airplane to fly across the ocean on a typical reconnaissance flight. The planes will be tracked by U.S. radar, but that's not a problem. When there are no other aircraft in visual range, the Russian airplane will launch a small, high-tech, stealth transport missile that can slip undetected into remote areas of the country. The missiles are retrieved by GRU operatives.

Another way to get a weapon into the country is to have an 'oceanographic research' submarine deliver the device—accompanied by GRU specialists—to a remote section of coastline.

Nuclear devices can also be slipped across the Mexican or Canadian borders. It is easy to get a bomb to Cuba and from there transport it to Mexico. Usually the devices are carried by a Russian intelligence officer or a trusted agent."

Now my military background shows.  In my view, the mass destruction weapons and terrorist teams are already sited and waiting in our population centers. The increasing stress on nations that will result from the increasing energy crisis and oil crisis will eventually push the nations of the world right over the edge. Unless the increasing energy crisis is blunted and the economic pressure stayed, we are now approaching the unleashing of a total mass destruction war, one in which the survival not only of America but of all civilization—and the biosphere itself—is at stake. 

In a very strange way, completely missed by our entire scientific community, we are already very close to having lost that war, and we will definitely win it or lose it in the next three years. And this coming war we will win or lose scientifically—by whether the scientific mindset changes or does not change in the next two years or less!

Accordingly, what time I have left will be spent on energy, energy, energy. Ethically, once one sees the great train that is rapidly bearing down upon us, one must do everything in one's power to stop it and derail it. It must be done for our children, and our children's children. Not only for the survival of we Americans, but also for the survival of all the other peoples of the world, and of this fragile biosphere as well.

Very best wishes,

Tom Bearden