A motor run solely by magnets was originally suggested by Nikola Tesla in 1905.

Today: "Engineers of Hitachi Magnetics Corp. of California have stated that a motor run solely by magnets is feasible and logical but the politics of the matter make it impossible for them to pursue developing a magnet motor or any device that would compete with the energy cartels."

In the late 1800's W. W. Gary patented 2 designs

On April 24, 1979 Howard R. Johnson was issued patent
No. 4,151,431 on one design. _{(more compilicated)}

Another, new, great breakthrough
in internal combustion engines:

NASA contest Winner: Massive Yet Tiny (MYT) Engine design

1929: The President of General Motors predicts 80 mpg cars within 10 years
1973: Shell employees create a 375 mpg car.

A. "Revolutionary Auto Engine" The Reader's Digest, November 1950 pages 77 - 79.

Thirty percent increase mileage- - No engine knocking - - Reduced refining costs - - No new problems in auto design - - Large extension of world's supply of crude oil.

B. "The Most Efficient Ever Invented - - The Bourke Engine".

HISTORY
The history of the Bourke engine and the details about how it operates are presented in a documentary written by Mr. and Mrs. Bourke the year before Russell Bourke died (1968). The copy we have on file was printed by :
D.D Enterprise 5212 Vineland Ave. No. Hollywood California 91601
The first edition price was $3.00 The Bourke engine patents are #2,122,676   2,122,677 and 2,172,670.
TEXT
the Bourke engine operates on the basis of a very simple principle, yet engineering and development involved is by no means simple. The basic component is of the opposed-cylinder, two-stroke type. However, these two-cylinder opposed units can be bolted together in clusters to achieve an engine of almost any displacement value desired. The system has co- operative pistons. They are connected by one rigid connecting rod that shuttles through an oil reservoir in a sealed crankcase. There are only two moving parts in the engine: a)the piston connecting rod and b) the crank shaft. The multitude of other parts found in a conventional internal combustion engine are not needed in the Bourke engine.
The July 1954 Issue of Hot Rod Magazine Ran A fairly detailed report on the Bourke engine.
Its chief claims are these:
There are fewer moving parts, therefore, the engine is lighter in weight than most motors, yet it has far greater power out-put (the engine can be operated at much higher rpm without appreciable power fall-off). The engine has no mechanical sounds and can be operated in any position desired.
We would like to draw special attention to one additional point. The Bourke engine operates on low quantity fuel with practically no exhaust fumes, no frame and very little heat.
As the reporter for Hot Rod Magazine said:
" Practical economy was the designer's prime requisite. It can be manufactured cheaply, can be run for exceptionally long periods of time without need of being torn down (parts in one unit after more than 2,000 logged hours are still as good as new - - as is the oil that was used during the entire running time) and it is economical to operate".

C. "Revolution of the Free-Piston Engine"

Popular Mechanics, September 1950 pages 155-188+
This is another new (in America) concept of engineering.

"In your present engine there are masses of moving metal - - connecting rods, crankshaft wheel. The new engine eliminates these parts. Two piston slide freely in a horizontal cylinder."

This engine requires no spark plug. It is quiet, vibration free, light. It is ideal for aircraft.

"Further, the free-piston is by all odds the most efficient power plant ever developed -- an important point since the world stock pile of fuels is steadily dwindling"

This report goes on to give the history of the free- piston development. There were crude models built as long as 100 years ago. In the 1920's the Swedes invented an awkward model. The Germans used such an engine in their war-time submarines.
The United States Navy began studying the concept in 1943.
The report goes on to state:

"Applications to automobiles appear to be well in the future, but such applications have dazzling appeal. A free-piston engine would be unbelievably quiet and vibrationless. It would be so small that it could be placed anywhere that it would give 50 to 60 miles per gallon of fuel - - - diesel oil or kerosene."

The report concludes:

"In sum, there is hardly a place where fuel is converted into energy that the new engine won't find application. It is more versatile than the diesel, three times more economical than the open-cycle gas turbine, cheaper than the steam plant. Prophecy is never completely safe with any development as new as this. But everything indicates that the free-piston engine will have quite as large an impact on all our lives in the second half of the 20th century as the conventional internal-combustion engine had during the first half."

The above report is not an isolated article. Books have been written on the free-piston engine. Its use in stationary power plants is widespread. Details of its production and how it works are found in Business Week, April 25, 1953, pages 101 - 106.
FURTHERMORE
General Motors Corporation has a free-piston car. See the report with accompanying photos in the July 1956 issue of Popular Science.
This report states:

"Like true gas turbines, it isn't finicky about fuel. Experimental engines have run on such a off beat hydrocarbons as whale and peanut oil. One big advantage is the dilution of exhaust gases by compressed air, which means that turbine blades need not spin in destructive high temperatures."
"G.M spokesman do not foresee commercial highway use for five to 10 years."

Remember, this was written in 1956.
Have you seen a free-piston powered car recently ?

D. "Amazing Swirl Engine Boosts Mileage 60%",

Mechanix Illustrated, October 1966, pages 86 - 88+
This, another new concept in engineering, was developed by Dr. Julius E. Witzky. Testing the engine was carried out at the Southwest Research Institute, San Antonio, Texas.
The engine will run smoothly on a variety of fuels including but not limited to gasoline or diesel. The overall air-to-fuel ratios are 100:1 at low rpm and idle. The fuel economy is about 60 percent greater than today's carbureted engine. The smog emissions are greatly reduced.
see Free-Patents-OnLine.com

THE CHRYSLER TURBINE CAR

This writer remembers seeing a Chrysler gas turbine car on the streets of Portland, Oregon in the early 1960's. Actually, Chrysler Corporation made about 50 turbine cars at that time and "loaned" them out to the general public in various cities around the country.

THE TURBINE

The turbine engine is not a new concept. They have been hard at work for many, many years. They run stand-by generators, drive Army troop trains, have powered landing craft, Marine hydrofoil boats and Air Force helicopters, not to mention the fact they fly over-head every day in jet airplanes.

As far as 1946, Captain Eddie Rickenbacker predicted that nearly all cars soon would be powered by gas turbines.

TURN BACK THE CALENDAR

Let us go back to the years 1963 and 1964 and read the headlines:

    "America's First Turbine Car" Look Magazine, June 4, 1963
      "Big Test - - -Chrysler's Turbine Car" Time, May 10, 1963
      "Chrysler Turboflite Experimental" Motor Trend, May 1963
      "Comeback in Detroit" Saturday Evening Post, May 25, 1963
      "Emotion - - Key to Turbine" Science Newsletter, April 11, 1964
      "Gas Turbine Car Feasible" Science Newsletter, April 4, 1963
      "On the Road; Chrysler's Turbine-Powered" Car", Newsweek, December 30, 1963
      "P.M. Drives Chrysler's New Gas Turbine" Popular Mechanics, July 1963
      "Test-Driving a Jet;Chrysler's New Turbine Engine"
       Business Week, March 28, 1964
      "That's the Jet" Newsweek, November 11, 1963
      "Turbine Drive" Newsweek, May 13, 1963
      "Turbine in a Truck; Experimental Gas Turbine Truck"
       Business Week, October 31, 1964
      "Wh-o-o-o-sh, Here Comes the Turbine" Hot Rod Magazine, July 1963
 

Further, the turbine car was the subject of repeated nation-wide television coverage, newspaper articles . . . .even books were written about the "turbine car".

The turbine engine has many distinct advantages over the piston engine. It has about one-fifth as many moving parts. There is only one spark plug and it is used only for starting purposes (should never need replacing). The troublesome ignition problems found in piston engines are eliminated. There is no distributor. Also , no radiator needed, because the engine is air-cooled. Turn the key and the engine fires immediately, even in sub-zero temperatures. There is no warming period required after the car is started. Turn on the heater and you get instant heat.

The car drives similar to a conventional auto. However, those who tested the car reported that the turbine operated more smoothly than the piston engine, there was less noise and less vibration.

Jay's Jet, Mopar magazine 10-27-2009

The turbine is clean-burning engine. Carbon monoxide gas is practically non-existent, as the fuel is burning completely, this adds almost nothing to air- pollutants. Engine oil never becomes contaminated or dirty because it doesn't come in contact with the fuel or combustion. Since there are fewer moving parts, engine oil consumption is practically eliminated. Five quarts of oil should last a life time.

The turbine is a light-weight engine, and should be expected to run 300,000 miles. The engine requires very little maintenance. (This is substantiated by the low maintenance need by the airline companies for their jets.)

FUEL

Another marled advantage over the piston engine is the fact that the turbine will deliver high power while using almost any fuel will burn in a test tube. It will operate on diesel, unleaded, regular or premium gasoline, kerosene, peanut oil, French perfume or brandy. Actually, synthetic, non-fossil fuel or even "home made" fuels would propel the turbine car very nicely.

DOCUMENTATION: All of the facts and figures cited above are documented in the various reports, test results and articles already listed at the beginning of this section.

MOST OFTEN ASKED QUESTIONS

What about the extreme heat from a turbine's exhaust ?

In 1954, George Huebner(at one time executive researcher engineer with Chrysler), "cofounded the experts by developing a rotating heat exchanger to harness the heat thrown out by the exhaust This was the key to making the engine practical and efficient enough to be worth developing. " Business Week, March 28, 1964, page 76.

On page 75 in the same magazine, there is a picture of gas station attendants with hands extended at the exhaust outlet. One report states that a kitten could sleep there and not be burned.

What about the price ?

"Chrysler claims that it can produce turbine engines that are competitive in price with their piston counterparts, if turned out in the same quantities
Business Week, January 6, 1962, page 37.

What was the public response to their test-driving the 50 experimental models ?

When the public first learned that Chrysler was planning to loan out theses cars for family driving., the company was flooded with mail . . . . so many wanted to participate. Chrysler wanted those selected to represent the average citizen. Among those not selected were William Randolph Hearst Jr. Gen. Cutis Lemay, Ernest Borgnine and Lyndon Johnson(while he was still Vice-President).

Finally, the participants were selected on the basis of geography(one in every state), climate and road terrain.

RESULTS

The cars were reluctantly returned to Chrysler with rave notice from the borrowers:

"The first man to get a turbine car, Chicagoan Richard Vlaha, told Business Week: `I never drove anything out of Detroit like that before. It is really terrific.' And his comments are restrained, compared to some others.

Another man reports: - - -"he can get hardly any work done at the office, everybody is so interested in the car . . . . . "
Business Week, March 28, 1964, pages 75-76

" `I just wish I could buy it after the test period is over, it's terrific,' said Mrs. Estelle Center, a housewife in Columbus, Ohio, and one of the four "typical drivers . . . . .."
Newsweek, December 30, 1963 , page 50

COMPLAINTS

Complaints have been minor ones:

"Enthusiasm, says Anderson, hasn't waned, to say the least." "His test market group agrees."
Business Week, March 28, 1964, page 83.

* * * * *

WHERE IS THE TURBINE CAR ?

All of us identify with a David who is up against a giant Goliath. It is easy to get some people to believe that the auto manufactures or oil companies are like giant Goliath who buy-up worthwhile inventions and "lock up" the design. This is done so more gas and oil can be sold- - or more car parts can be sold - - and the rich get richer. These stories are common.

Actually, from the published record there does seem to be a grain of truth to this kind of reasoning. At times there does seem to be a "collusion" between government agency officials, the automobile manufactures and the oil companies.

However, rather than this writer offering a judgment as to the truth of these stories, let us sample the evidence - - then you be the judge.

"Chrysler is careful about its claims for the future. It is uncomfortably aware of what a major shift to gas-turbine engines would do to the auto industry's vast investment in the piston engine and to the oil industry's stake in high-octane fuels, is also mindful of difficulties yet unforeseen in widespread use of evidence that the public is willing to give the new engine a try."
Time, May 10, 1963, page 90.

The public liked the turbine. It was well received.

It is a proven engine. Its wide use in aviation proves the fact.

The turbine was successfully adapted to a car. The written record between 1952 and 1965 proves that fact.

The turbine car was ready to go. Company officials state the fact.

Yet: Chrysler is "uncomfortably aware" that

1) . . .a simpler, more efficient engine would not require many parts; would require less maintenance and in the long run, less money to the auto related industry.

Also, they were aware of the fact that:

2) ... .. this engine will operate on fuels other than gasoline - - - thus the oil industry's (money) stake must be considered.

Is this Time comment an isolated one ?

Let us dig deeper.

From this point on to the end of the chapter, notice how certain high-ranking government officials, key oil companies and the automobile manufacturers are indeed closely related . . . .as someone has said," they are cozy companions".

Since gasoline is taxed, the more gasoline burned - - the more dollars flow into government coffers.

Read this documentation:

      "Gasoline Racket", Saturday Evening Post December 26, 1931
      "Gas Taxes!" Literary Digest June 15, 1929, page 64, 
            also February 20, 1932, page 44.
      "More Gas Taxes !!" Business Week March 5, 1929, page 10, 
            November 11, 1931 page 10, and February 10, 1932
      "One Big Union",  Business Week July 7, 1934, page 10
      "16 Oil Companies Convicted Of Fixing Gasoline Prices".       
           Senior Scholastic February 1938, page 15 and Business Week,
           January 29, 1938
      "Gas Tax Injustice Less Than 5 per cent Finds its Way into Street 
          Construction and Maintenance Programs".   August 1947, page 102
      "Truth About Gas-tax Diversion" American City, June 1949, page 5+
      "American Motorist: No.1 Tax Sucker" Coronet, August 1952, pages 40 -44
      "Airlines Protest Added Gas Tax" Aviation Week , July 18, 1955
      "Tax Revolt at the Grass-roots" U.S. News and World Report,
      April 26, 1957, page 108
      "Pilling it on, Double in a Decade" Newsweek, September 7, 1959, page 34
      "Motorist Pay More Than Their Share of Highway Costs",  
      Saturday Evening Post February 11, 1961, page 10
      "(President) Ford Weighs a Hidden Tax on Gas". Newsweek, 
       December 30,1974, Pages 48 - 49
      "Should we Sharply Increase Taxes on Gasoline ?"  Senior Scholastic
       March 13, 1975, page 10
       Telephone Call; Fall of 1977 to local Gasoline Companies: The State and 
       Federal excise taxes in Washington State are currently $0.14 per gallon! 
     

In 1952, the average citizen paid the same amount in various gas and automobile taxes as he did in INCOME TAXES !

"The American Motorist: No.1 Tax Sucker", Cornet, August 1952, pages 40 - 41.

What do you think that figure is today ?

* Actually, gas and automobile "excise" taxes are simply another INCOME TAX.

Certainly the evidence proves that the government collects multi-millions of dollars from the gasoline tax.

NOW

How does the turbine car fit into this picture ? READ THESE REPORTS

      December 1939   Popular Science, pages 80 - 81 gas turbines promise 
                      new era in power
      June 13, 1942   Science News Letter, page 372 Gas turbine for airplanes
      May 1943        Popular Science, page 114 Gas turbine drives Swiss locomotive.
      June 1944       Fortune, pages 174 - 180 + Gas turbine: New prime mover.       

Volume 14 of the Reader's Guide to Periodical Literature (covering the years July 1943 - April 1845, page 642) contain twenty three different magazines and scientific references to the gas turbine.

      June 1946         Popular Science, page 121 Gas Turbine for autos.
      August 1946       Scientific American, also Readers Digest
                        Powdered coal feeds a turbine.
      August 1947       Popular Mechanics, page 97 General Motors auto engine
                        of the future uses 1/3 less gas.
      August 1947       Popular Science, pages 89 - 91 Super engine cuts 
                        gasoline bill.
      May 17, 1948      Newsweek, page 62 Turbine cars.
      May 29, 1948      Business Week, page 66 Gas turbine autos
      September 1948    Both Popular Mechanics and Popular Science
                        Turbines designed for cars.
      January 14, 1950  Business week, page 70 Baby gas turbines ready for 
                        marketing.
      March 20, 1950    Newsweek, page 70 Jets on wheels.
 

Volume 17 of the Reader's Guide to Periodical Literature (pages 780 - 781) lists some ninety- three articles and reports on gas turbines for airplanes and automobiles.

Volume 18 of the Reader's Guide to Periodical Literature (covering April 1951, through March 1953) list over 100 articles and reports on the use of the turbine engine in airplane and automobiles - by both civilian and the military.

      January 23, 1954   Science News Letter, page 51 Experimental 
                         gas turbine auto.
      January 26, 1954   Look, page 15  First look at the gas turbine car.
      February 1954      Popular Science, pages 160 - 161 America's first 
                         turbo car. 
    

These and 13 other reports in 1953 and 1954 indicate that the turbine car was soon to be built for marketing.

 
      October 22,1955   Business Week, pages 83 - 84 What to do until 
                        the turbine comes. 
       July 14, 1956   Science News Letter, page 21 New gas turbine bus.
   

from this point on the record makes reference to many , many reports on the turbine engine written every year. We list only a few more.

April 1959 Popular Mechanics, pages 131 - 135 You're looking at the gas turbine era!
July 1961 Popular Science, page 35 Chrysler's turbine.
January 6, 1962 Business Week, pages 36 - 37 Turbine car for the masses?
January 15, 1962 Saturday Evening Post pages 38 - 41 I rode cross country in the turbine auto.
The year 1963 and 1964 were already referred to at the beginning of this chapter.

From One Driver's Story : "I am Mark Olson, in 1965 my father was the 160th user of the Chrysler Turbine Car Program. Here is a Chrysler publicity shot taken on May 13th 1965, the day that my family took possession of the Turbine Car (serial #991232) for three months."

 
      April 1965      Changing Times, pages 39 - 42 Car with tomorrow's engine. 
      October 1965    Popular Science, page 88 Turbine drives  Chevy  truck. 
      February 1969   Mechanix Illustrated Turbine engine for cars. 
      September 1973  Popular Science (Another) Chrysler turbine car. 
      November 1973   Mechanix Illustrated (Another) turbine by  Ford. 
    

A CLOSER LOOK

We've already shown proof positive that other cars have been invented which do not require gasoline as a fuel. But, for now our subject is the turbine car.

Have the auto manufactures "locked up" this invention ?

A. General Motors Company had a turbne vechile on public display as early as January 1954, pages 66 - 70, also April 1954.

This report asks the question : "How soon before we would expect to see the turbine car for sale ?" Answer : "5 to 10 years, maybe longer."

B. In 1954, Chrysler Corporation revealed their gas-turbine engine after " 9 years of top secret research". See Business Week, March 29, 1954, page 67.

This report states "that Chrysler's development may make gas turbines in cars years rather than decades away."

C. Ford Motor Company has a turbine car and a turbine truck, See Mechanix Illustrated, May 1967, page 62 - 65 and Business Week, October 31, 1964, page 28. See picture of the vechiles.

When will this turbine car be ready for the public ?

" Top Ford officials estimate five years before turbine trucks appear on the highway, passenger cars should follow three to five years later."

Actually, according to written evidence, the turbine car has been ready for years.

D. "A First in Automotive History : We Drove A Turbine Car Coast-To-Coast" by George J. Huebner Jr. Executive Engineer, Research, Chrysler Corporation. Popular Mechanics, June 1956.

This article shows pictures of the car, its coast-to-coast route and gives high praise for the turbine. The turbine expected to revolutionize the auto industry within 10 years.

TIME TABLE

E. "Timetable for Next Car Engine : The Gas Turbine and Its Future" Business Week, April 2, 1955, page 134+

Since the turbine car would be greatly affect the auto and oil industries, the writer of this report asks the auto manufactures and oil company officials:

"When should we expect the turbine car to be available to the public?"

THEY ESTIMATE   by

         1960 .................60,000 -    300,000 cars
         1965 ................264,000 -  3,900,000 
         1970 .............11,500,000 - 42,500,000 
         1975 .............48,000,000 - 62,000,000 
      

The report goes on to say that although the auto manufactures can now produce the turbine cars, it will usher in major changes ... because the turbine car will run longer with less maintenance required.

The article points out that :

"80% of the reports submitted to the oil companies say automotive turbines are a sure thing within 10 years. "

Yet the report also point to the fact that the oil industry must face major changes when the turbine is mass-produced, The turbine can operate on home made fuels - - - it doesn't need to burn gasoline.

F. Even auto parts companies began to prepare for turbine car :

"Parts Makers Prepare for Turbine" Business Week, May 19, 1956, page 64.

CONCLUSION

The turbine is a proven engine that has one major drawback. It does not have to burn gasoline as a fuel !

* Oil companies refine gasoline - - they want it sold as a fuel.

* Government agencies collect taxes from gasoline - - they want it sold as a fuel.

* Politicians - - get much of their campaign funds from oil

* Auto manufacturers - - "are uncomfortably aware of what a major shift to gas-turbine engines would do to the auto industries vast investment in the piston engine. ..."

We must conclude that this gas saving, oil conserving, non-polluting engine is: ON THE SHELF

see Chrysler's 1963 Turbine bruchure

see showroom photos

TOP 10 IMPOSSIBLE INVENTIONS THAT WORK - by Jeane Manning

• The English Academy of Science laughed at Benjamin Franklin when he reported his discovery of the lightning rod, and the Academy refused to publish his report.
• A gathering of German engineers in 1902 ridiculed Count Ferdinand von Zeppelin for claiming to invent a steerable balloon. (Later, Zeppelin airships flew commercially across the Atlantic.)
• Major newspapers ignored the historic 1903 flight of the Wright brothers airplane because Scientific American suggested the flight was a hoax, and for five years officials in Washington, D.C. did not believe that the heavier-than-air machine had flown.

1. THE SPACE ENERGY CONVERTER

This class of inventions could wipe out oil crises and help solve environmental problems. More commonly called free energy or fuelless electric generators, they put out more power than goes into them from any previously recognized source. No batteries, no fuel tank and no link with a wall socket. Instead, they tap an invisible source of power. Such unorthodox clean energy-producing devices exist today and were built as far back as the l9th century.

Forget the Rube Goldberg mechanical perpetual motion contraptions; they had to stop eventually. In contrast, new solid-state (no moving parts) energy converters are said to draw from an energy field in surrounding space. This source of abundant power is known by physicists as the zero-point quantum fluctuations of vacuum space. Zero-point refers to the fact that even at a temperature at which heat movement in molecules stops cold, zero degrees Kelvin, there is still a jiggling movement, said to be from interdimensional fluctuations or cosmic energy. Magnetism and vortexian or spin-upon-a-spin motions seem to line up these random fluctuations of space and put them to work, as in the Searl Effect (Atlantis Rising, first issue).   - [ now known to astronomers and physicists as "Dark Energy" ]

Inventors give various names to their space-energy converters. In the 1930s a scientist in Utah, T. Henry Moray, invented a Radiant Energy device powered from the sea of energy in which the earth floats. This sea that surrounds us, Moray said, is packed with rays which constantly pierce the earth from all directions, perhaps from countless galaxies. Converting this cosmic background radiation into a strange cold form of electricity, his device lit incandescent bulbs, heated a flat iron and ran a motor. His sons say he was thanked with bullets and other harassments, but that's another story.

A spiritual commune in Switzerland had a tabletop free energy device running in greenhouses for years, but members feared that outsiders would turn the technology into weaponry. Before the commune closed its doors to snoopers, European engineers witnessed the converter putting out thousands of watts.

Among the free energy inventions of John Worrell Keely (1827-1898) is the Hydro Pneumo-Pulsating-Vacuo motor that used cavitation (implosion) of water. Although Keely reached an advanced understanding of the science of vibrations, he failed to develop machines which other people could operate. Progress continues from other directions, a company in Georgia is selling water cavitation devices that range from 110 per cent to 300 per cent efficient.

Up in Vancouver, Canada, Tesla researcher John Hutchison says he has a feel for the natural flows of a subtle primal energy. In the spring of 1995 he showed his latest invention to the author and a mechanical engineer. The Hutchison Converter involves crystalline materials and the principle of electrical resonance. He twirls a few knobs to tune it, and the energy flow is amplified until it runs a one-inch diameter Radio Shack motor. The whirring of a small propeller isn't too impressive until you remember that there are no batteries and the device runs for days at a time.

The garage inventors come from many backgrounds. Wingate Lambertson Ph.D. of Florida, former executive director of Kentucky's science and technology commission, invented a device which converts the space energy fluctuations into electricity which lights a row of lamps. This dignified former professor took a roundabout route to the free-energy scene. In the mid-1960s he read There Is a River by Thomas Sugree, who writes about the destruction of Atlantis through misuse of a crystal energy collector. Lambertson's psychic friend later offered to collaborate on replicating the first Atlantean energy converter, but Lambertson eventually turned to his own knowledge of ceramics and metals to develop an energy converter. Neither his nor other known zero-point energy conversion methods of today are based on the first Atlantean crystal method, because the researchers found better methods. Also, the concept of a central power station providing electric power to a nation is obsolete, says Dr. Lambertson. Small energy converters will follow the path of the personal converter.

2. COLD FUSION

In Japan, cold fusion is called New Hydrogen Energy, and that oil-dependent nation welcomes successful experiments. In contrast, two pioneering experimenters were hounded out of North America. David Lewis described this scene as Heavy Watergate in Atlantis Rising, issue two.

Update: A successful experiment was served up in Monte Carlo in April, at the Fifth International Conference on Cold Fusion. Clean Energy Technologies Inc. of Florida demonstrated a cold fusion cell with energy output as much as ten times more than input. Other companies are also gambling on this new source of heat energy which could drive electric generators.

What exactly causes atomic nuclei to fuse, and release energy, without extreme high temperatures and pressures? A Romanian physicist writing in Infinite Energy magazine, Dr. Peter Gluck, wonders if it could be only partly a catalytic nuclear effect, and partly a catalytic quantum effect providing the capture of the zero-point energy, The ubiquitous z-p energy.

3. SYSTEM TO SPLIT WATER FOR FUEL BY USING RESONANCE

Another variation on the water-fuel theme relies more on vibrations than on chemistry. At more than 100 per cent efficiency, such a system produces hydrogen gas and oxygen from ordinary water at normal temperatures and pressure.

One example is U.S. Patent 4,394,230, Method and Apparatus for Splitting Water Molecules, issued to Dr. Andrija Puharich in 1983. His method made a single electrical wave form resonate water molecules and shatter them, which freed hydrogen and oxygen. By using Tesla's understanding of electrical resonance, Puharich was able to split the water molecule much more efficiently than the brute-force electrolysis that every physics student knows. (Resonance is what shatters a crystal goblet when an opera singer hits the exact note which vibrates with the crystal's molecular structure.)

Puharich reportedly drove his mobile home using only water as fuel for several hundred thousand kilometers in trips across North America. In a high Mexican mountain pass he had to make do with snow for fuel. Splitting water molecules as needed in a vehicle is more revolutionary than the hydrogen-powered systems with which every large auto manufacturer has dallied. With the on-demand system, you don't need to carry a tank full of hydrogen fuel which could be a potential bomb.

Another inventor who successfully made fuel out of water on the spot was the late Francisco Pacheco of New Jersey. The Pacheco Bi-Polar Autoelectric Hydrogen Generator (U.S. Patent No. 5,089,107) separated hydrogen from seawater as needed.

4. SYSTEM FOR SENDING POWER WIRELESSLY

Look, Mom Earth, no power lines!

Tesla may have wanted to voice such a boast, but it didn't turn out that way; the world is crisscrossed with transmission lines for the electrical power grid. His invention for sending electrical power wirelessly wasn't too popular on Wall Street.

Before the power brokers figured out what he was up to, Tesla built a tower-topped laboratory near what is now Colorado Springs. He filled the mountain air with thunderous manmade lightning bolts and pounded the earth with electrical oscillations as he tested ideas about electrical resonance. Then he returned to New York to build Wardenclyffe, a complex wooden tower on Long Island from which he planned to send both communications and power wirelessly. When banker J. Pierpont Morgan realized Tesla could make it possible for anyone to stick an antenna in the ground anywhere and get electrical power, the banker cut off the inventor's funding, blocked other financial deals that Tesla tried to make [and, is generally considered responsible for sending thugs to burn down Wardenclyffe].

In recent years, scientists such as James Corum Ph.D. have learned that Tesla did successfully test a wireless system in Colorado. For example, Tesla knew specific frequencies associated with the earth-ionosphere waveguide, knowledge he could not have had in the nineteenth century unless he had sent electrical oscillations wirelessly.

5. ANTI-GRAVITY DEVICE

In 1923 Townsend T. Brown's simple flying discs demonstrated a connection between electricity and gravitation. Working along these lines for twenty-eight- more years, Brown patented (U.S. Patents 2,949,550, 3,018,394 and others) an electrostatic propulsion method. Starting with two-feet-in-diameter suspended discs flying around a pole at seventeen feet per second, he increased the size by a third, and the discs flew so fast that the results were highly classified, said an international aviation magazine in 1956. Before the end of his life Brown had apparatus that could lift itself directly when electricity was applied. He died in 1985.

The bottom line: if electrogravitics is developed, we could have an electric spacecraft technology which does not obey known electromagnetic principles. The craft would thrust in any direction, without moving engine parts. No gears, shafts, propellers or wheels.

Coupling effects between electricity or magnetism and gravity are shown by other experimenters, including David Hamel of Ontario and Floyd Sparky Sweet of California. At a 1981 symposium in Toronto, Rudolf Zinsser of Germany demonstrated a device (U.S. Patent 4,085,384) that propelled itself, according to credible witnesses such as professional engineer George Hathaway. Zinsser claimed his specifically shaped pulses of electromagnetic waves altered the local gravitational field.

Hathaway collaborated in the mid-1980s with John Hutchison on action-at-a-distance experiments in which heavy pieces of metal levitated and shot toward the ceiling when put in a complex electromagnetic field, and some metal samples shredded anomalously. Visitors to the laboratory came from Los Alamos and the Canadian department of defense. (The military is a quantum leap ahead of the academics in spooky science.)

Read the first issue of Atlantis Rising for a fascinating antigravity story, John Searle's levity disk generator.

6. A METHOD FOR TRANSMUTATION OF ELEMENTS

Changing atomic elements or making elements appear mysteriously? It sounds like impossible alchemy, but experimenters recently did this, without Big Science particle accelerators. These scientists learned from a metaphysician, Walter Russell (1871-1963). During vivid spiritual experiences, Russell had seen everything in the universe, from the atom to outer space, being formed by an invisible background geometry. Russell not only portrayed his visions in paintings, he also learned science. He was so far ahead that in 1926 he predicted tritium, deuterium, neptunium, plutonium and other elements.

Recently, professional engineers Ron Kovac and Toby Grotz of Colorado, with help from Dr. Tim Binder, repeated Russell's 1927 work, which was verified at the time by Westinghouse Laboratories. Russell found a novel way to change the ratio of hydrogen to oxygen in water vapor inside a sealed quartz tube, or to change the vapor to completely different elements. Their conclusion agrees with Russell: the geometry of motion in space is important in atomic transmutation. Kovac shorthands that idea to geometry of space-bending.

These modern shape-shifters speak of Russell's feats such as prolate or oblate the oxygen nucleus into nitrogen or hydrogen or vice versa. To change nuclei, they change the shape of a magnetic field. Although they used expensive analyzing equipment, it is basically tabletop science. No atom-smashing cyclotron needed; just a gentle nudge using the right frequencies. Focus and un-focus light-motion, create a vortex and control it.

Cold fusion researchers are also running across strange elements popping up in their own electrified brews. No one is proposing to make gold and upset world currencies, but some experimenters aim to clean up radioactive waste by their novel processes.

7. ORGONE ACCUMULATOR

As Wilhelm Reich, M.D., (1897-1957) moved from Europe to Scandinavia to America, he left a trail of angry experts in every field he explored, from psychiatry to politics to sexology, biology, microscopy and cancer research. His work all led toward one unifying discovery, a mass-free pulsating life-force energy he named orgone, because he discovered it in living organisms before finding that it also permeates earth's atmosphere.

Reich's life ended in prison after prolonged conflict with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. His books and papers were burned by federal officials because the FDA had gathered a case against use of his orgone accumulator for therapy. The accumulator is a box made of layered organic and inorganic materials; experiments with it show anomalous results. An unusual temperature rise inside the accumulator indicates limitations of the second law of thermodynamics. Whether or not concentrated orgone can help with health problems, the accumulator does defy standard science.

8. The CLOUDBUSTER'

In 1952 Wilhelm Reich invented a method of rainmaking that doesn't involve cloudseeding with chemicals. Cloudbusting, otherwise known as etheric weather engineering, invokes principles that are hard for the conventionally trained mind to accept. The technology is low-tech; point some hollow metal pipes at the sky and connect their lower ends into running water. But unless you know both meteorology and orgonamy, please don't try this at home, on our planet.

Among the properties of the primordial energy, orgone, Reich observed, are its absorption into water, its role in controlling weather and its dangerous state when excited by radioactivity. The planet doesn't need any more mad-scientist experimenters manipulating natural systems, but it may need a more advanced understanding of what nuclear power plant emissions do to the atmosphere. (Reich's followers warn that the planet's life-force is disturbed by the excess radioactivity.)

9. THE RIFE MICROSCOPE & FREQUENCY GENERATOR

In the late 1920s Royal Raymond Rife of San Diego invented a high-magnification, high-resolution light microscope. This meant that he could see unstained living cells, unlike the dead specimens seen under an electron microscope. Basically, he developed an electromagnetic frequency generator which he could tune to the natural frequency of the micro-organism under study. Further, he learned that certain electromagnetic frequencies could kill specific bacterial forms.

New discoveries in biophysics not only shed light on the illumination process of Rife's microscope, they also explain how he could selectively explode viruses. His concept of shape changing bacteria indicates that traditional germ-theory dogma is incomplete. Despite documented cures, his non-drug, painless electrical treatment of diseases was not welcomed by a powerful medical union.

10. ELECTRONIC TELEPATHY DEVICE

When Patrick Flanagan was a teenager in the early 1960s, Life magazine listed him as one of the top scientists in the world. Among his inventions was the Neurophone, an electronic instrument that can program suggestions into a person directly through skin contact. He made the first Neurophone at age fourteen, out of kitchen junk, his electrodes were scouring pads made of fine copper wire and insulated with plastic bags. He then wired the electrodes to a special transformer attached to a hi-fi amplifier. Holding the pads on his temples, he could hear, inside his head, music from the amplifier. Later models automatically adjusted the signal to resonate with the human subject's skin as part of a complex circuit. Patent officials said it was impossible for a sound to be heard clearly without vibrating bones or going through a crucial nerve of the ear, and refused for 12 years to patent it. The file was re-opened when a nerve-deaf employee at the patent office did hear with a Neurophone.

At one time Flanagan researched man/dolphin language, on contracts with the U.S. Navy. This led to a 3-D holographic sound system that could place sounds in any location in space. He then perfected a Neurophone model which could be used for subliminal learning that would go into the brain's long-term memory banks. But after he sent in a patent application on a digital Neurophone, the Defense Intelligence Agency slapped on a Secrecy Order and he was unable to work on the device or talk to anyone about it for five years. This was discouraging, since the first patent took twelve years to get.

Having helped certain deaf people to hear, Flanagan's next miracle could be to help the blind to see. All we have to do is stimulate the skin with the right signals.

With public acceptance of inventions such as space-energy converters and super-learning devices, perhaps today's innovators will pull the establishment, kicking and scoffing, into a new world view before the 21st century. However, figure that there will always be experts to say Forget it: such things are impossible.