Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2002 23:59:31 -0500  

Dear Patrick,

Sorry to take awhile to answer your letter; there has been some serious illness in my family and I've been very very busy in that respect.  Things are improving now, and so I've taken the time to answer.

You raised a very good point.  Yes, it was and is a scam, and it is still ongoing.  Simply note the vehemence with which the scientific community --- spurred by Big Nuke science --- attacked and savaged the struggling cold fusion scientists.  With over 600 successful cold fusion experiments now, in various labs of various nations around the world, the conventional scientific community is still attacking it with a frenzy and diatribe seldom seen in the annals of science.

The only reason that one does not get transmutations readily in ordinary chemistry is for one reason only: the so-called "coulomb barrier", where like charges repel.  Two H+ ions (two free protons), for example, repel each other more and more strongly the closer they get, so unless one uses very high energy on them, one cannot drive them together so that each enters the strong force region of the other, thereby overcoming the Coulomb barrier.

Therein lies both a truth and a lie.  It is true that the Coulomb barrier exists as long as time is traveling forward and reactions are proceeding "normally".  However, in a time-reversed zone, the reactions are traveling backwards.  In such a little temporary zone, like charges attract and unlike charges repel. In that case, the two protons can attract so closely that each enters the strong force region of the other, thereby forming a quasi-nucleus.  The other ions in solution outside the TRZ then move to decay the TRZ back to a forward time zone (FTZ), a quark flips in one of protons in the quasi-nucleus, turning it into a neutron, and viola!  one has just produced a nucleus of deuterium.  In our forthcoming book, we have a chapter on cold fusion, with specific reaction equations for several of the transmutation products usually produced in successful cold fusion experiments.  We also introduce "time-charging" (time is just spatial EM energy compressed by C-squared, so it has the same energy density as mass). That is rather clearly shown in some very anomalous instrument reactions in some rigorous electrolyte experiments in U.S. Navy research facilities at China Lake for some years.  Absolutely nothing in normal high energy physics explains those instrumental anomalies, nor does it take into account the TRZ effect.  Eventually, when the cold fusion researchers finally win out over sheer prejudice and dogma, one will be able to do all sorts of translations in normal chemistry, but by the use of not-normal time-reversal zones and "reversible reactions" specifically permitted at the microscopic level by quantum mechanics and the equations of physics.

In a very eerie sense, the entire electrical power industry (as approved by the scientific community) worldwide is a giant though unintentional scam, at least since 1957 and the discovery and experimental proof of broken symmetry.

Reminds me of the ongoing argument between the environmentalists and those not concerned with the environment.

As with all polarizations, both sides have some valid points and other points that are just the particular horse each is beating.

There is a big problem, nonetheless, in between all the rhetoric.

We have to change the way we get and use energy, it's as simple as that.  In short, we must have the energy, but cleaner, cheaper, and without all that burning of hydrocarbons, use of nuclear fuel rods, pollution of the planet, etc.  Else we will eventually strangle in our own cesspool formerly called an environment. Even worse, we will probably see terrorists deliberately lay much of our centralized energy infrastructure in the dust and destroy or severely damage it.  More on that part later.

So we have to have a better energy solution, and we have to have cheap (and by all means, clean!) energy.  On the other hand, to advocate returning to the dark ages with severe curtailment of energy availability -- under the name of "sustainability" --- is also the kiss of death and ridiculous.  All modern economies -- necessary to allowing that thing we call "freedom" and rights of the individual --- are based on the availability of cheap energy and food.  That part is solid.  What each side advocates doing about it is what all the polarization and fuss and fury is about.

What is really sad is that none of the passionate debaters recognize that it is the scientific community that is unwittingly to blame for the energy situation and environmental mess.  E.g., specifically as in the point you made about how the nuclear power industry was "presented" originally.

It is wise to listen to Feynman, who stated that "We really do not know what energy is!"  To illustrate that point vividly:

There is not now, and there never has been (and if the conventional establishment has its way, there apparently never will be) a single electrical engineering department, EE professor, or EE textbook that even knows and teaches what powers an electrical circuit in the first place. Sad, but very true.

The National Academy of Sciences, National Science Foundation, great national laboratories, etc. also do not appear to know it.

The environmentalists do not know it.

The anti-environmentalists do not know it.

Yet the rigorous basis for what really powers every electrical circuit has been in particle physics, proven both theoretically and experimentally, since 1957.  That's 45 years -- nearly half a century.  We are speaking of the discovery of broken symmetry, which was such an enormous revolution in particle physics that, when Wu and her colleagues proved it experimentally in early 1957, the Nobel Committee moved with unprecedented speed and awarded the Nobel Prize to Lee and Yang --- who had predicted it in 1956 and 1957 --- that very same year, in December 1957.

Sadly, the broken symmetry of opposite charges still hasn't made it into electrical engineering and classical electrodynamics yet.  So to speak, the electrical engineering departments seem so moss-bound that in 45 years they have been unable to walk across the campus to the physics department and find out what broken symmetry of opposite charges -- as on the ends of a dipole --- really means, and why it definitely must be added into the electrical engineering model if one wishes to practice science rather than dogma. Just now their ancient model does not even include the active vacuum, much less a broken symmetry in its violent exchange with every charge and dipole in every EM circuit and system.  If you model a windmill but in your model exclude the active environment and any "free wind", then you will have to crank any windmill you build that actually works that way, ignoring the active environment.  Any windmill designer who connected his rotating shaft back to his rotating fan blades, so that when the shaft to the pump begins to rotate the blades begin to turn parallel into the wind and quit turning, would be called a lunatic.  The electrical power folks design every electrical power circuit as a closed current loop circuit which uses half the Poynting energy collected in the circuit to destroy the source dipole in the generator, killing its free extraction and outpouring of EM energy from its terminals.  So they deliberately and ubiquitously design "windmills that stop themselves from turning in a free wind", and call that "modern" enlightened electrical power science.  One is reminded of the old saw, "With such friends, who needs enemies!"

All the present burning of hydrocarbons, use of nuclear fuel rods, building of dams and windmills and solar cells, etc. does not directly add a single watt to the external power line.  Never has, never will.  Let him who doubts it just read the literature on the broken symmetry of opposite charges, find out why Lee and Yang were awarded the Nobel Prize, understand what broken symmetry of opposite charges really means, and then apply it to the fundamental dipolarity of a common power supply, such as a generator.

In being so archaic, the scientific community is and has been directly responsible -- though unwittingly! --- for this environmental mess made in our search for energy and particularly cheap energy, which until now has largely meant cheap oil.

The naive environmentalists unfortunately take their scientific advice from the very scientific community that created the problem in the first place. Understand, all this is unwitting, but regardless of intentional or not, the effect is the same.

The scientific community also defends its present dogma nearly to the death, and it always has, as any historian of science is well aware.  Check out the actual history of things like conservation of energy (Mayer), continental drift (Wegener) , the amorphous semiconductor (Ovshinsky), ultrawideband radar (Barrett and Harmuth), etc.  Cold fusion and energy from the vacuum are simply the latest examples of areas singled out for savaging the researchers.

The hoary old second law of thermodynamics has been used now for many decades to "shoot down" and ostensibly refute all suggestions that COP>1.0 EM systems are not only possible but are included in Maxwell's original theory --- and even in the Heaviside-Gibbs-Hertz truncation of that theory, prior to Lorenz-Lorentz symmetrical regauging.  Once the Lorentz regauging is applied, then all overunity EM systems have been ARBITRARILY discarded from the resulting truncated theory.  So what do all our electrical power engineers use? The Lorentz symmetrically regauged truncation (severe) of the Maxwell-Heaviside equations, and call it "Maxwell's theory". Not a single one of those equations ever appeared in a paper by James Clerk Maxwell.

Most of the EEs do not realize that, when they perform a Lorentz regauging, they assume changing the potential energy of the system twice, but in a specifically selected (here's the REAL Maxwell's demon in reverse!) manner so that the excess energy works against itself, continuously doing internal work on the system to increase and maintain stress in the system.  It specifically prevents excess energy --- freely received in the electrodynamicists' own assumption --- from being used asymmetrically so that it could translate electrons and thereby produce excess power in an external load.  Also, the regauging assumes rotating the frame of the system out of the laboratory frame as well.  Eerily, the gauge freedom axiom used by all electrodynamicists assumes that the potential energy of any Maxwellian system can be and is changed freely at will.  However, the researcher/experimenter is expected to be so stupid that he forms two changes of energy so that they fight each other to a draw.  Imagine what would happen if you used elephants for logging, but insisted on assigning the elephants in pairs lifting the log and pushing against each other with equal force.  You would not get any "free moving" of logs from those elephants, because you "symmetrically regauged" the problem.  Instead, you use ONE net elephant, and he freely moves the logs easily.  You have to pay to "guide" him with the trainer, but the elephant works for free, and also may forage freely to restore his energy dissipated upon those logs.

It turns out that every charge, field, and potential --- and every joule of EM energy, whether in space or in mass ---  totally violates the second law of thermodynamics (which is falsified completely by the mere existence of electrodynamics).  None of the learned agencies and antagonists referred to above apparently knows that; they have not solved the source charge problem, nor have they examined the broken symmetry solution posed by particle physics.  Hence they have not seen that all electrodynamics totally falsifies the entire second law of thermodynamics.  But it is easily shown.

The foundations of so-called modern physics and electrodynamics are seriously flawed.  Most are over a century old (in the EM field, for example).  The electrical engineering profession does not anywhere properly define a potential or a field; instead, they inanely advance a nonsequitur which states that what is diverged from the potential or field around a unit point static charge assumed at any point in space, is the "magnitude of the field or potential". It is no such thing.  The swirl of water flow in a river, around a fixed rock therein, is absolutely not the "magnitude of the river".  At best, it is an indication of the intensity of the river's flow at that point, via use of a standard "static" diverger.  Simply place the same fundamental unit point charge into particle resonance, and voila!  Lots more energy will be collected upon that same charge now, than one inputs by the "accepted" calculations.  Simply check Craig F. Bohren, "How can a particle absorb more than the light incident on it?"  American Journal of Physics, 51(4), Apr. 1983, p. 323-327. Under nonlinear conditions, a particle can absorb more energy than is (by standard Poynting calculation) in the light incident on it.  Metallic particles at ultraviolet frequencies are one class of such particles and insulating particles at infrared frequencies are another. See also H. Paul and R. Fischer, {Comment on “How can a particle absorb more than the light incident on it?’},” Am. J. Phys., 51(4), Apr. 1983, p. 327.  The Bohren experiment is repeatable and produces COP = 18.  Variations of that "negative resonance absorption (translation: excess energy emission) of the medium" are routinely performed in nonlinear optical laboratories, and have been in the literature since the 1960s, particularly in Letokhov's work.

It would be nice if the debating sides on the energy and environment controversy understood the modern view of an "isolated" source charge as a dipolarity (e.g., just read it expressed very clearly in Steven Weinberg's Dreams of a Final Theory).  In the center of the "isolated charge", there is the "bare" charge --- which is infinite in energy.  Surrounding this infinite bare charge are clustered virtual charges of opposite sign in the vacuum.  That opposite clustering charge is infinite in energy also.  But the difference in the two infinite charges --- as seen by an external observer peering through the screening virtual charges --- is finite, and is the common value of the "isolated charge" given in the textbooks and handbooks.   So the two infinite opposite charges are actually a dipolarity, and hence every observable charge is a dipolarity (of opposite charges). Hence every charge in the universe is also a broken symmetry of opposite charges.  "Dipole" means opposite charges on each end!  If the antagonists would understand why Lee and Yang were awarded that Nobel Prize --- they might FINALLY understand that the charge and the dipole EXTRACT FROM THE VACUUM all that EM energy they pour out continuously in all directions, freely.   Every charge and dipole in the universe thus already freely and continuously extracts and pours out real, observable EM energy from the seething vacuum.

The energy poured out continuously at the speed of light from the source charge establishes its fields and potentials and their energy, reaching across the universe in all directions at the speed of light.  That is continuous giant negentropy.   Further, the energy poured out continuously into the macroscopic 3-space is not disordered!  Instead, it is perfectly ordered.  E.g., at any point in space where that energy flow has reached and thus is continuously flowing through, the field has a specific value and direction, and the scalar potential has a specific value.  So the field and the potential are perfect order steadily established and maintained --- even across the entire universe for the original source charges in the original matter --- to any macroscopic size one wishes.

That is a total and unequivocal violation of the second law of thermodynamics, at least for electrodynamics. All electrodynamics --- every charge, field, potential, and every joule of energy in matter or in space --- is a total violation of the second law.

The creator has been most kind: there is absolutely no problem at all in producing giant (unlimited) EM energy flows extracted easily and cheaply from the local vacuum, anywhere in the universe, at any time, for peanuts. The only problem (which of course NO ONE works on in the scientific community, nor will they even ALLOW it to be worked on by those sharp young grad students and postdocs) is in building a SEPARATE (at least in functioning) external circuit to catch some of the free, copious EM energy flow and collect it, then dissipate the collected energy from that collecting circuit in an external load to power it. That should be done without using half the collected energy to destroy the source charge or dipole, as is now done (by the closed current loop circuit).

The rather totally insane "solution" promoted by our electrical power scientists and engineers is to put the source dipole (between the terminals of the generator) in the SAME "external circuit" that collects the free flow of energy from the source dipole out of the terminals of the generator, so that half the collected energy in that external circuit is used to do nothing but destroy the source dipole and cut off the energy flow, faster than some of the energy is used to power the load.

One feels like having a great sign erected by each great highway, with a picture of a generator and its dipolar terminals, and huge words saying, "It's the dipole and the vacuum asymmetry, stupid!"

That Nobel Prize to Lee and Yang, you see, was for predicting broken symmetry. One of the broken symmetries proven now for nearly a half century is the broken symmetry of opposite charges -- SUCH AS ARE ON THE END OF A DIPOLE OR DIPOLARITY.

This means that all we do in cranking the shaft of the generator is to transform the mechanical energy input into internal magnetic energy.  Then all that magnetic energy is dissipated TOTALLY on the internal charges in the generator, to force the positive charges in one direction and the negative charges in the other, THEREBY MAKING THE SOURCE DIPOLE AND DIPOLARITY BETWEEN THOSE TERMINALS.

And that is ALL that burning the hydrocarbons, building the nuclear power plants, building the dams, building windmills and solar cell arrays, etc. DOES. None of that adds a single watt to the power line; never has and never will.

Once the dipole is made, THEN ONE SHOULD JUST LEAVE IT ALONE.  If one does that, the dipole --- as certified and verified and stamped and sealed by a Nobel Prize --- WILL CONTINUOUSLY AND FREELY AND COPIOUSLY EXTRACT EM ENERGY FROM THE SEETHING VACUUM, DIRECTLY.  IT WILL TRANSDUCE (COHERENTLY INTEGRATE) THAT EXTRACTED VIRTUAL PHOTON ENERGY INTO OBSERVABLE  PHOTON ENERGY, EMITTING THE OBSERVABLE PHOTON ENERGY IN ALL DIRECTIONS IN 3-SPACE.

Let the dipole alone, and it will freely extract EM energy from the vacuum and pour it out, indefinitely.  The source charges (modern view as dipolarities) and dipoles in the original matter in the universe have been doing that for some 14 billion years, and they have not run down yet. They're still going strong, and will do so for another 14 billion years if the universe lasts that long.

All EM fields and potentials and their energy are established by their source charge, by its pouring out that EM energy continuously at the speed of light.

So dies the second law of thermodynamics, and may its coffin never be resurrected again.

To recapitulate: The second law (in modern physics times since statistical mechanics) has always recognized that microscopic entities such as a charge, atom, molecule, or small group of molecules can and do violate the second law, because those microscopic processes are reversible. So the modern interpretation of the second law already permits that source charge to sit there and freely emit energy out of the seething vacuum.  In short, it permits the source charge to continuously exhibit giant negentropy, in total violation of the second law.

Until recently, the prevailing scientific interpretation, however, has maintained that at levels that are quite a bit larger than a few molecules, the second law remained absolute.  That now has also died as follows.

Recently Prof. Denis Evans et al., at the Australian National University, have rigorously proven (paper just published in July in Physical Review Letters) that the second law can be violated and is violated at size levels to a micron (colloidal level) and up to two seconds. Wow!  That's up to switching level and "small circuit" consideration levels, where systems can actually be designed and utilized.  The smug reaction of the "can't beat the second law" fellows has been, ah yes, but at the MACROSCOPIC level the second law is still perfectly and completely in force.  However, they admit, the nanotechnology fellows may experience some difficulties with their nanobots, which as they get smaller may not work at all like their bigger brethren.  And with that, the "can't beat the second law" fellows smugly go back to sleep again, without thinking the problem through.

Well, in material just published on my website, we have included that "perfectly ordered" EM energy --- comprising the fields and potentials from the source charges --- that DO establish ordering at any macroscopic level desired.  That flatly destroys the entire second law, AT LEAST FOR ELECTRODYNAMICS.

Again, the energy continuously and freely extracted from the vacuum and poured out by a source charge (say, a single proton or a single electron, or any number of protons or electrons) is NOT disordered as it forms in the macroworld and spreads across it at the speed of light!  To the contrary, the emitted EM energy is perfectly ordered.  At a given radial distance from a given charge, the scalar potentials have an exact magnitude, and the vector entities (fields and vector potentials) have an an exact magnitude and an exact direction.

So the charge pours out a perfectly ordered set of potential and field energies, spreading outward at light speed in all directions but maintaining its perfect order.  Wait one year, and the energy in a volume of space one light year in radius -- reaching out beyond the solar system! -- has been altered AND THE ALTERATION IS ORDERED AND ORGANIZED.

That giant macroscopic order and negentropy is the total death knell of the hoary old second law.  It was never a law of nature in the first place, but only a useful rule which closely approximated the performance of many systems we built until now.

Now we just have to build different kinds of systems --- NEGENTROPIC systems, which are now possible electrodynamically.

You see, the very concept of "entropy" always had a fatal flaw that destroyed its "absoluteness".  A priori, the very notion of "continuously disordering some order" implicitly assumes that there has first been some negentropy of at least the same magnitude, to produce the initial order, or else there can be no order to be subsequently disordered in the first place. So the old "law of increasing entropy -- i.e., the second law of thermodynamics" -- is dead, at least in electrodynamics, which by its mere existence totally refutes the second law.  But if the scientific community has its way, it will take another 50 to 100 years for the second law to fall down.  Meanwhile, by their rigid control of the research funds permitted to the professors, grad students, and post docs, they will continue to keep them muzzled with the second law, or else they will destroy their careers if they try to do the scientific work showing that yes, the second law of thermodynamics is dead.

So we will get free, clean energy -- cheaply -- from the vacuum whenever the scientific community will let modern scientific knowledge be used.  And whenever the environmental community gets some advice elsewhere, then beats on the leaders of the scientific community until they force a change in the commitment and available of research funds.

Or whenever the philanthropists devote funds to developing the COP>1.0 electrodynamics systems, including "closed loop" self-powering systems.  The Bohren-type experiments alone warrant a full-bore attack on this problem, if we had a scientific community worth its salt in energy.

Meanwhile, the conventional scientific system will continue to spend billions on hot fusion, fuel cells, big nuclear power plants, getting more coal and burning it, etc.  And they will continue to permit some windmills and solar arrays as a "sop" to the environmentalists, to divert them and nullify their activism.  And unfortunately the environmentalists will continue to just naively believe the scientific community's "Trust me!  We know!" posture.

The planet could indeed be saved, while allowing energy in abundance.  And yes, one can produce negative energy (cooling) almost as easily as positive energy (heating).  So even global warming can be attacked directly -- again, if the scientific community would allow the necessary research and would fund it.  The use of negative EM energy and the long-neglected vast Heaviside energy flow component also allows antigravity (see my forthcoming book), so it would also revolutionize transportation.

We just need the correct vision of how to do it.  Just now, all the polarization and fuss and fury and squabbling isn't contributing very much to the solution. The powers that be have decreed that in our future we shall have fuel cells (bombs or not), big nuclear power plants (never mind the residues), lots of research on hot fusion (but not cold fusion; see my book for the secret of cold fusion and transmutation), increased use of coal (cheap, but dirty so relax the environmental protocols), oil but more expensive, natural gas but more expensive, continue the hydroelectric dams, and --- to completely deceive and sidetrack the environmentalists, keep pushing windmills and solar cell arrays, and bleating about "renewable energy sources" while totally ignoring the greatest of all inexhaustible and self-renewing source: the active vacuum.  That way the gas meter is going to stay on the gas pump (and read higher), and the electric power meter is going to stay on your house.

Meanwhile, the recent "brown cloud" over Asia is just a tiny forerunner of that which is to come.  The energy needs of the developing world are escalating, and energy needs will double by somewhere between 2020 and 2030, depending on who makes the estimate.  The environment is already heavily beset, and the biosphere is ever more polluted and reeling.  The volatile situation in the MidEast could explode at any time, with absolutely disastrous consequences in energy.  The entire monstrous energy infrastructure in the U.S. (and other nations) is deadly vulnerable and easily laid in the dust, to collapse a nation economically.  Further, the hostile terrorist assets are already in country, waiting.  9-11 was a wake-up call, but there is much more waiting and in store for us.  As an example, in 1997 SecDef Cohen made the following 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.]

The Secretary of Defense was referring to scalar interferometer weapons, long deployed (as early as 1963) by several nations (now at least 10, and even the Japanese Yakuza has such weapons and produce them in its own facilities in Japan).  Notice that those using these weapons have indeed stimulated earthquakes into eruption, and volcanoes into eruption --- and then consider the several "extinct" volcanic craters not far from the newly appointed nuclear storage facility in Utah, which could be stimulated into eruption.  Or consider striking the nuclear containment building in a nuclear power plant with a powerful very local quake induced directly under the building (or even inside it). Refineries, port facilities, the 800 mile long above pipeline in Alaska, etc. are deadly vulnerable to such weapons. A good theoretical exposition of scalar interferometry is given by M. W. Evans, P. K. Anastasovski, T. E. Bearden et al., "On Whittaker's Representation of the Electromagnetic Entity in Vacuo, Part V: The Production of Transverse Fields and Energy by Scalar Interferometry," Journal of New Energy, 4(3), Special Issue, Winter 1999, p. 76-78.  A few Spetznaz types with C-4 packages, duct tape, and timers can devastate that Alaskan pipeline, knocking out 20% of our entire domestic oil supply in a moment, easily and without much risk of losing the assets.  With shaped charges, demolitions Spetznaz types can knock out any oil or gas pipeline desired -- they are all easily seen with rightaways that run through the boonies for miles and miles.  As here in TVA land, power transmission lines run on steel towers for hundreds of miles -- again, a few guys with C4, duct tape, and timers can lay them in the dirt at any time.  Most of the supplies and men for the Gulf oil field in the Gulf of Mexico pass down a single little 2-lane state highway in Louisiana, with some 1100 18-wheelers a day hauling them to the port.  That highway is barely above water, with many bridges and streams, marshes, etc.  A piece of cake for  terrorists to cut it in multiple places (drop a few bridges, etc.).  Pandemonium would result in the Gulf oil field.

As Vice President Cheney stated, we are now in a strange kind of war that will last for our lifetimes, since some 20,000 terrorists have already been infiltrated into the U.S. and are just waiting.  They have anthrax, smallpox (or camel pox, gives the same results and is easily available wherever there are camels), etc.  Before the collapse of the former Soviet Empire, the Russians also brought in nuclear weapons into the U.S., along with the Spetznaz teams to detonate them in our large cities.  See Lunev's book; he tells how the weapons were inserted. So we do have potentially hostile nuclear weapons already hidden in most of our large cities.  And these weapons range up to 20 KT and even 40 KT, larger than the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  Also, contrary to popular opinion, Saddam Hussein does very probably have some nuclear weapons (up to six dozen or so).  In 1991, the few calutrons we got showed weapons grade uranium.  So his calutrons had been making U-235 of bomb grade already, at the end of the war.  He keep and hid most of his calutrons, and that was 11 years ago. Undoubtedly he has also managed to insert a few of his atomic bombs (probably gun assembly type, which are simple to build -- just drive two separated blocks of U235 together very sharply with explosives) in the United States.  Castro alone ran guerrilla training camps in Southern Mexico for some decades, and most of the graduates were infiltrated across the Rio Grande into the U.S. (some 10,000 of them).  Even if half of them have abandoned it for the "good life", that is still a potent guerrilla force here in the U.S., waiting its time and waiting for orders to start sabotage, blowing bridges, destroying power distribution lines, etc.

The point is, the monstrously centralized energy infrastructure in the U.S. is deadly vulnerable, and the hostile assets necessary to devastate it are already in country.  So we have to do something to offset that hugely centralized nature of it.  We either decentralize much of it, certainly enough of it to guarantee our survival, or else that vulnerability will be exploited to destroy us economically by doing unacceptable damage to the energy infrastructure.

Meanwhile, the scientific community conducts its energy research in a nonchalant "business as usual" manner.  There is not a single conventionally funded research program in energy from the vacuum.  Instead, the antagonists locked in debate over environment and supposed "solutions" continue to battle over the wrong problems.

War has a funny way of starting off very easily, and then one day suddenly escalating beyond anyone's wildest expectations. In the old days, we thought of strategic strikes by ballistic missiles, etc.  The purpose of a great strategic strike is to deliver the weapons onto the distant enemy targets, and detonate them there to destroy the targets.  Euphemistically that is referred to as "symmetrical" warfare.  The new warfare, however, is asymmetrical.  That is, one delivers the weapons of mass destruction clandestinely onto the distant targets or nearby, and also the teams to detonate or unleash the weapons on order. So a great strategic strike in asymmetrical warfare has two phase: (1) the weapons and teams delivery phase, and (2) the destruction phase.

The first phase of World War III has already been completed.  We have been in WW III now for some years, and Americans still have not thoroughly understood that, even after 9-11.

One of the major and most lucrative targets for those strikes is our highly vulnerable centralized energy infrastructure.  That is certainly a major target, and the other major target is our civilian populace itself.  The new and evil breed of terrorists wish to kill as many innocent civilians and noncombatants as possible, even avoiding the military forces.  The idea is pure mass murder, catechized into mouthing distorted religious proclamations as "justification".

Our huge, cumbersome energy infrastructure is going to be laid in the dust, at some point, and we can count on it.  We either make the necessary preparations to counter that coming strike now, or it hits us with no counter available.  In that case, we lose the war by having our national economy collapsed.

And just now, none of the fellows so ardently debating the biosphere, energy, and sustainability issues are taking into account the real nature of the war we are already in officially (and have been in without realizing it for some years).  The National Science Foundation and the National Academy of Sciences is ignoring the primary solution, as is the Department of Energy, our universities, etc. Nobody but nobody in the conventional community is working on the real solution to the energy problem.

No one is going to, until the calamity strikes us full in the face.  Strike us it shall, and you can bank on it.

Best wishes,

Tom  Bearden

Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2002 10:58 AM
To: Tom Bearden
Subject: Fwd: FAO Col Bearden / please forward

27th August 2002

Dear Colonel Bearden,

what follows is really just historical perspective, but it is worth repeating and is relevant to present and imminent energy debates, perhaps even to discussions that may arise from your forthcoming book.

Back in the early 70¹s, when I was still a student, I interviewed a college professor about the obvious national energy problem, and the likelihood of getting an income energy policy in the UK. He thought me very naive, and in passing, told me about the first UN Conference on the Peaceful Uses of Atomic Energy, held in Geneva, 1955, I think.

I don¹t know how that was reported in the US but certainly one of the propaganda lines which emerged in the UK was that citizens were being offered the prospect of electricity so ubiquitous and cheap to generate that there would be no need to meter the use of it. In other words, apart from nominal overheads and labour costs, the power¹ would be free. Since that time the UK has acquired what must be the greatest concentration of so called commercial¹ reactors anywhere in the world.

So, 47 years on, has anyone delivered on those original promises?  Of course not ! But it gets worse. Not only have we been denied our free electricity¹, but as of today the estimated minimum cost to the UK taxpayer of essential decommissioning of old N plant is £48 billion pounds ! (How many dollars is that ? ) So to recap: no free electricity, no indirect social benefits, no sane energy policy of any kind; just a disposal nightmare and a colossal tab to go with it.

If ever the public were victims of a free energy scam that was it. Of course the apologists will wave their hands and talk about economic realities, but that¹s not the point. The point is that when today¹s Scientific Inquisition¹ (wherever they may be) jump up and shout Free Energy Scam!¹ we should remind them that back in the 50s there was no shortage of scientists and politicians backing the Free Electricity Scam¹ because it suited their propaganda needs.

Best  Wishes

Patrick