The Tom Bearden
Subject: RE: Industry interest
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 17:13:58 -0500
Don't believe everything everyone tells you; it depends on the reaction
Hal is a very good scientist, and he is using known physics that is
rigorous. Known physics does not have overunity electrical power systems
anywhere in it. So known "good physics" poses no threat or upset at all to
the status quo, since it has nothing at all working that is of any size to
suggest practical EM power systems can be quickly developed (in a few years
instead of many decades). The Casimir effect and the Lamb Shift pose no
electrical power system threat whatsoever, and neither do the fluctuations
of the active QM vacuum. Hal doesn't meet resistance because he does not
have a potentially threatening working-model overunity model system.
Neither does he meet with continual assassination attempts for the same
reason. Neither is he involved in the intense "gaming" that provides most
of the suppression.
I also do not meet resistance from "conventional QM vacuum fluctuations
theory only" presentations to casual technical groups, just mild skepticism
and , "Well, we know, yes, the vacuum is active, our physicists already know
that and they tell us that, and maybe someone will be able to even extract
some energy from it by 3000. That's interesting, old chap, of course, but
nothing to really get excited about, now is it? Meanwhile, we have some oil
wells to drill and some pipelines to lay, and we really must get on with
building some more coal-fired power plants and some refineries."
Re: from your Cheniere.org Selected Correspondence from 22 April,
"We are continuing to try to get the necessary funding to get on with it.
Biggest problem (at least in the U.S.) is this: It is considered as
"disruptive technology". Seems few agencies and few investment groups with
substantial commitment to the normal power industry stuff, are interested in
anything that will "disrupt" the normal way of doing things! That includes
the investment community, the scientific community, most of the government
community, etc. ........ ,
but I really did not realize the extent and depth of this outright phobia
against "disruptive technology". Now we do. It's really something when a
major investment group will spend about $150k for independent technical
assessments and due diligence, and then back away because it is disruptive!"
I've been troubled by this news ever since I heard it from you.
Do you know that this directly contradicts what I heard from Hal Puthoff,
saying, (to paraphrase) " Industry would welcome new energy sources as an
aid to expanding business. I have not encountered any resistance or
negativity when presenting new energy topics before industry groups."
What's up here?