The Coming Energy Revolution: The Search for Free Energy, by Jeane Manning
Tailored for the lay audience, touching on revolutionary technologies
including those introduced by Tesla.
Book Review Page Contents
• Table of Contents • Dedication
• Foreword Excerpt • Reviews • See
Posted with permission of Jeane Manning
To the pioneering inventors in the new-energy scene, and especially to all
those whose stories did not end up in this overview--your struggles and triumphs nevertheless
touch and inspire me.
by Brian O'Leary, Ph.D.
Physicist and former astronaut
Excerpt from the book
Posted here with permission of Jeane Manning
This may be one of the most important books you will read. It describes the rapid progress
in making available a source of energy that many of us in the scientific community believe will
radically change the face of the earth--zero-point energy from quantum fluctuations in the vacuum of
space. Many people call this "space energy" or "free energy."
Because the free energy that surrounds us in such a vast source, so potentially clean and
decentralized, some of us believe a revolution is brewing. Afterward, existing energy sources
may be seen as dinosaur nightmares that littered our landscape and polluted our air. This
revolution could open a new paradigm of science and technology that would make the Copernican and
Industrial Revolutions appear tame....
Electrical power systems based on compact solid-state devices will probably replace the fuse
boxes and circuit breakers of individual homes and buildings. We finally will be able to get
off the power grid. The new energy boxes will also be portable, eliminating the need for
storage units such as batteries. They will replace the internal combustion engines in our
automobiles and other transportation and industrial systems. And they can be used in the field
to dramatically increase agricultural efficiency (for example, pumping for irrigation) and therefore
can help eliminate hunger in Third World countries.
But we will need to develop policies in which these energy devices are scaled appropriately to
their end use and not overused or applied to weapons. In the longer term, I believe we will
discover that space energy can also be sued in a practical way for antigravity propulsion systems.
So why don't we get on with it? It seems that since the time of Nikola Tesla a century ago,
we have been suppressing "free energy." We have all developed some deep-seated fears
that are blocking the way, ones that haven't yet reached the public consciousness. Yet with
all the suppression, the energy genie is finally out of the bottle, as Jeane Manning clearly shows
in this book.
First, I'd like to share some background to these dramatic statements. About twenty years
ago, when OPEC raised its oil prices and an energy crisis erupted, I began to look at how we in our
culture were abusing energy.
Do you remember the gas lines of the mid-1970's, the grim statistics of increasing oil
scarcities, air pollution, oil spills, oil wars, prophecies of nuclear meltdowns, radioactive waste
contamination, nuclear weapons materials proliferation from foreign domestic power programs (like
North Korea's now), and other predictions of doom and gloom? As we head toward the turning of
the millennium, whatever happened to the energy crisis? ... Many of us can recall that as the
1970s further unfolded, the OPEC cartel began to lose its grip, oil prices dropped, and Ronald
Reagan was elected U.S. president.
As if by magic decree, the mass media and public consciousness decided there was no energy crisis
after all. The oil glut resumed and any perception that there was a need to develop
alternatives seemed to drop out of public awareness.
Two decades ago, the fleeting public perception that we did have an energy challenge helped to
spawn a Department of Energy (DoE). It was expected to support research and development in
alternative energy sources. But much of the DoE was simply bureaucratic old win in new
bottles, combining existing special interests in both fossil fuel and nuclear power.
Until this day, it is apparent to me that little true progress has been made to stop our abuse of
energy and the environment. Rather than moving Manhattan Project- or Apollo Project-style into
the future, we instead reinvent the wheel of vested interests in fossil fuels and internal
combustion engines and nuclear energy, and we continue to supply electricity from large central
power stations through and ugly grid system that may be a major health hazard (electromagnetic
pollution from power lines). So why didn't we do anything about this?
A switch to clean "free energy" could almost totally alleviate air pollution, global
warming from carbon dioxide emissions, waste heat, Saddam Hussein's ecocidal fires, black skies, oil
spills, acid rain, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, hydrocarbon and ozone emissions, unsightly oil
production and refining facilities, supertankers, gas stations, power stations, transmission lines,
and the rest of it.
Use of "free energy" could also end our thirst for oil and natural gas. This
thirst is draining precious resources from the Earth at alarming rates. This lifeblood, formed
over tens to hundreds of millions of years within Earth's crust, has been greedily extracts as if
there were no tomorrow. Oil production and consumption has more than tripled since the onset
of the energy crisis. Almost half of the world's available oil and more than half of the
natural gas have already been skimmed off the top of our best deposits and burned, mostly within one
At present rates of consumption, proven U.S. oil reserves will last just ten years, and world oil
reserves will last forty years. Even if these reserves were to prove to be twice as abundant
as the estimate, we will run out of oil by the middle of the twenty-first century, with inevitable
sharp price rises.
...We are indeed borrowing the Earth from our children rather than inheriting it from our
parents. An ecological consensus is emerging--we must stop this and build a sustainable
The economic impact of converting to space energy would be enormous. Revenues from the use
of electrical power worldwide are now $800 billion per year, a doubling over the twenty years that
have passed since awareness of the energy crisis was articulated and then withdrawn. This
staggering cost even exceeds by twofold the size of the automobile industry, and is comparable to
the amount that taxpayers annually pay to a debt-ridden United States government.
The worldwide energy infrastructure that depends primarily on burning oil, coal, and natural gas,
and on the use of radioactive elements, consumes about $2 trillion each year, a figure so
high it is hard to imagine the enormity of its grip on all of us. In the time it takes for you
to read this sentence, the world is burning up more than one million dollars of fossil and nuclear
fuels for use in electrical applications, heating, cooling, and transportation systems.
During the early 1980s, while I was studying advanced space power concepts at Science
Applications International Corporation, it became very clear to me that any radical new idea in the
energy field was in for tough sledding. It would face vested interests within the U.S.
government and established industry.
Most of the billions of dollars of Department of Energy research and development funds are still
spent each year to expand the use of fossil fuel and nuclear energy. In my years as a science
policy analyst, I learned that government R&D projects form the thin edge of a wedge of great
political and economic clout; today's blueprints leverage into tomorrow's multibillion dollar
realities. once a project's investment goes over a billion dollars, the project becomes a new
special interest, with contractors in Congressional districts and so forth. This guideline
appears to hold regardless of the merit of the project.
The largest single advanced R&D project in the DoE is the more than a billion dollars spent
on the (still infeasible) "hot" fusion concept. Hot fusion would involve both
building large power plants and more pollution from excess heat, radiation, and power lines.
Another significant portion of DoE funds is spent for high-energy physics and weapons research not
directly related to energy production. Much smaller amounts go to developing solar and other
alternative sources, and to energy conservation. Nothing--not one penny--of American public
funds (outside the black budgets that we don't know about) is invested in looking at the source of
energy that I believe will change the way we do things--the free energy which surrounds us.
An entrenched interest has become so powerful that we seem to be blind to any new concepts,
especially those as radical as "free energy" and cold fusion. We seem to be more
interested in teh controversy about whether these developments are real, rather than in seizing a
Much theoretical and experimental information already supports the credibility of space
energy. I have been surprised to see a breadth and depth of knowledge, dedication and
professionalism, and substantial achievements among leading theoreticians, experimenters, and
inventors in the "free energy" field. These are the explorers of a new
reality. They are cut off from the mainstream because the mainstream debunks this reality,
with a denial based on the most superficial reasoning.
Rather than the public's stereotypical image of the eccentric out-of-touch garage inventor who is
probably wrong, many of our "free energy" inventors and researchers are Ph.D.s working in
mainstream settings, such as Shiuji Inomata at the Electrotechnical Laboratories in Tsukuba (Japan's
"Space City"). He has been a full-time government employee for the past thirty-five
In India, Paramahamsa Tewari has a prestigious government position as Chief Project Engineer of
that nation's largest nuclear power plant under construction. Both governments have permitted
these two men to build their "free energy" devices..., something that has been unthinkable
in a DoE lab in the United States.
Dr. Inomata recently lectured government and industrial leaders (more than 600 professionals
showed up at his last seminar), and Thoshiba Corporation invested $2 million to develop
superconducting magnets for his new unipolar generator....
Few other qualified scientists bother to take the learning and relearning time to learn about
"free energy"; most of the vocal naysayers have not addressed the puzzle. They are
limited by peer pressure and funding pressures, and by a strong bias against probing the unknown
outside their own specialties. I know; I was there!
A common error made by the debunkers is the assumption that if these machines were real, they
would have heard about it. The history of science is full of examples of leading scientists
ridiculing--sometimes emotionally--new ideas because of this assumption, and later being shown to be
wrong. Of course this is about as far from science and rationality as you can get, and it
suggests that the suppression syndrome starts with scientists themselves.
Government officials and the media turn to the scientists for their information, and so also
ignore the obvious....
By default, it seems, these establishment mouthpieces define what is meant by credibility--which
may actually have little to do with the truth. One phone call from a mainstream journalist to
a mainstream luminary such as Carl Sagan, for example, could quash as story. Unfortunately,
our most revered news sources do not have the final word on the truth, and this causes the slow
progress of science.
So why haven't we adopted "free energy" if we've had it for so long? ....
How could so many decision-makers have kept "free energy" so completely from us, so
that there is still not a single machine on the market? After all, the technology for making
it available is probably not that far beyond our reach. It is probably much less challenging
of a project technically and financially than the Manhattan Project scientists faced in developing
the atomic bomb, or than the Apollo program scientists and engineers faced in sending men to the
moon.... Inventors have apparently been demonstrating "free energy" results fro mere
thousands of dollars--not the billions and trillions spent on perpetuating more traditional
approaches. Why has it taken so long for money to flow in logical directions?
In other words, how could the suppression of "free energy" technology have been so
complete, so airtight for so long? If our government and scientists are ignoring the obvious,
why haven't market forces gotten wind of this and briskly moved ahead? it seems that everybody
is waiting for the other shoe to drop.
I have come to a conclusion I had previously thought to be unlikely: that the Suppression
Syndrome pervades every aspect of any revolutionary new development. Usually the more radical
the concept, the stronger will be the forces of suppression.
For example, most inventors are underfunded or have been "bought out" in exchange for
keeping their trade secrets under wraps. This closes them off from sharing knowledge within
the interdisciplinary teams that I feel will become necessary to develop this new industry. In
my opinion, we will need a moderately funded effort of perhaps tens of millions of dollars to make
the necessary breakthroughs.
I disagree with those who see this potentially paradigm-shattering development as a purely
competitive private-sector issue--a horse race motivated by the chance that a particular system
might be the winner which could yield millions or billions of dollars to lucky investors. In
such a competitive situation, other new energy systems fail to be developed because of bad timing or
underfunding or other suppressions.
In such a win-lose system, we are spinning our wheels. In the Western world, the entire
complex of denials from scientists and secrecy from industry is gridlocking us. It's a crazy
In summary, most inventors and researchers of "free energy" systems are underfunded, so
progress is slow. The prospect of becoming a millionaire by being among the first to develop a
commercial model encourages secrecy and suppression. instead of this all-or-nothing approach,
I propose that we develop win-win funding strategies that would virtually eliminate the cancer of
suppression. (Because of our fear of the unknown, we are suppressing what we need the most.)
There appear to be three main challenges for "free energy" proponents:
- Suppression of all kinds has been efficiently blocking availability of the new energy
- The potential of "free energy" for replacing existing infrastructures will cause displacements
in jobs, income, and power, to a degree that it is unprecedented in our economy.
- The abuse of "free energy" technology could lead toward its overuse or use as
a powerful weapon. However, devices can be designed to be safe. I feel we cannot let
the potential for abuse be a reason to stop or to suppress the technology.
Harnessing the clean "free energy" is too important for the planet and for ourselves,
and is inevitable. But we must develop standards for appropriate use, to meet the strictest
guidelines for sustaining our global environment. We need to be responsible creators--learning
lessons from our abuses of nuclear energy, for example.
I do feel that once "free energy" devices pass the usual tests, such as cleanliness,
cheapness, and convenience, the technology will quickly flood the worldwide marketplace. We
all know of the profound effects that earlier inventions have had on our lives--inventions such as
electricity, telephones, automobiles, airplanes, television sets, transistors, and computers, to
name a few.
The challenge is not to decide whether or not "free energy" is real. It is.
Instead, the challenge is to our collective will, to break free of our ignorance, the electric jail,
the ecocide, the gridlock, the Newtonian rigidity, the greed, and the vested interests.
Now I think you can see why I believe this book is so important. "The energy
revolution," Jeane Manning said to me in a candid moment, "could affect people's
lives--their practical everyday choices--profoundly, because decentralized power means
freedom. It means empowerment to clean up our environment instead of feeling helpless.
The megaproject-builders no have no leg to stand on when they claim their projects are
Jeane Manning is a highly qualified journalist who has researched the new-energy scene since
1982. She brings an international perspective to the topic, being in ongoing contact with many
inventors, theorists, and other networkers in about a dozen countries. She has attended more
than twenty energy-related conferences in Switzerland, West Germany, Canada, and the United States.
The time is right to share this with the world. ...She is the first experienced journalist
to cover this important and neglected topic in a trade book, and it fills a unique need.
End of book excerpt
"After Bearden's paper was read, Walter Rosenthal stood up and startled the audience of
skeptical engineers: 'I have personally seen Floyd Sweet's machine operating. It was running
. . . those small motors you saw in the video. It was jump-started with a nine-volt
battery. There was no other electrical input required. . . . There was no connection to the
power line whatsoever." And, no, there were no moving parts.
Reviews of The Coming Energy Revolution:
Page created by Sterling D. Allan Nov.
Last updated November 28, 2006