Grassroots Push for New Energy

How much has changed in ten years?
Reprinted with permission from Atlantis Rising magazine May 2004
by Jeane Manning

One night a decade ago, I was in Calgary’s Centre for Positive Living. The conference room was packed with well-dressed men and women who each cheerfully paid $35 to hear an American space scientist talk about his latest book. The author, Brian O’Leary, had earned a Ph.D. in astronomy and now held their rapt attention with anecdotes of his odyssey. He’d journeyed from the excitement of the NASA astronaut program in the 1960s and teaching physics in Ivy League universities to Exploring Inner and Outer Space – the title of one of his books.

The audience’s mood shifted, however, when O’Leary said that independent inventors and theorists proved it’s possible to tap the underlying “zero-point energy” of the space that surrounds us, for generation of electricity. He asked rhetorically, “Wouldn’t it be great if we didn’t have to drill for oil anymore?”

Silence. Bewilderment.

“I know.” he hastened to add, “Oil built Calgary. Don’t worry. There will be other opportunities…”
What was he talking about? they wondered. To many of those in Calgary, Alberta, drilling for oil is the opportunity.

“…And we could clean up the waterways. We have this abundant source of energy that can be tapped either by a magnetic motor or by a small solid-state device like a little black box that electronically pluck this energy out of the vacuum of space. Just a little bit is all you would need to power your home or – like here — your public places. And your car.”

The mellow-voiced scientist repeated that in the future we will not need oil for fuel. Nor will we need nuclear power, nor to dig for coal.

“It’s almost like we’ve been in a nightmare, creating these polluting dinosaurs in our industrial civilization over the last 100 years.” He stopped pacing the platform. “I think we’re going to look back, say from the year 2020, with 20/20 hindsight – and look at the 1900s as that century when we abysmally polluted the earth…when we went down an incredibly crazy path. And then we backed off.”

Why is this alleged new energy source not reported in mainstream publications? It isn’t the first time discoveries were ignored, O’Leary said. Think Galileo. The resistance to a new idea is in proportion to the idea’s importance; energy is a multi-trillion-dollar industry. Humankind has never dealt with a changeover of this magnitude, but we could take our time and do it wisely.
When he invited questions, the audience ignored “free energy”. Instead they asked about spoon-bending, Sai Baba and crop circles.

Ten years later, O’Leary has a new book covering solutions to environmental problems, Reinheriting the Earth, and he and Alden Bryant, an originator of the United Nations Climate Change Treaty, have started a citizens’ federation called the New Energy Movement (NEM). Its first public conference is September 25-26, 2004, in Portland, Oregon.

Like a higher echo of the brief event in Calgary, the venue is the Living Enrichment Center in Wilsonville, Oregon, near Portland. It looks like this time the audience will be focused on new energy possibilities and implications. Last year O’Leary and Bryant testified at California Energy Commission hearings, and O’Leary spoke to U.N. officials as well as doing mass-audience radio interviews and a public speaking blitz.

The single best chance for humankind to solve global problems, says the New Energy Movement manifesto, is a transformation in the way we generate and use energy.

The non-profit movement’s activists are quick to add that even the desired gradual changeover in energy technology won’t solve many problems, unless change comes hand-in-hand with a widespread increase in awareness. They have in mind awareness of our responsibility as caretakers of ecosystems – a transforming knowledge about the influence we have on the interconnected web of life.

At the end of the year I attended a NEM board of directors meeting in the riverfront home of Dr. Brian O’Leary and Meredith Miller in northern California. Attendees were a microcosm of seekers-of-solutions – including environmental and social justice advocates as well as physicists, an accountant, a chemist, social worker and teachers.

“New energy science is in the research phase of a research-and-development cycle,” O’Leary says, seeking help for inventors. While critics note that no revolutionary energy inventions are on the market yet, he requests that people be realistic. “Asking today’s underfunded independent inventors to immediately deliver finished products is like asking the Wright brothers to deliver passengers and mail right after their maiden flight in 1903.”

Meanwhile, despite the national-security risks of nuclear fission and oil dependence, and hazards from burning fossil fuels, it seems government planners are in no hurry to promote truly new small-scale clean energy technologies. Fuel cells are touted, but the public doesn’t seem to know that decision-makers plan on carbon fuels and nuclear fission to produce the hydrogen for powering fuel cells. And judging by statements from energy officials, the door to other future energy sources will be open in, say, 2050.

In contrast, the people display a sense of urgency.

“I have two young daughters, and I don’t want to wait for two generations,” says NEM board member Joel Garbon, a scientist in the paper industry. “Why are the ‘zero-point-energy’ technologies popping up like daisies all over the planet if they’re meant to languish?”

None of these NEM organizers expect new energy to be a magic formula for Utopia. But if people realize that energy is potentially abundant, the group noted, justifications for oil wars fall flat. And if the emerging science of energy-from-surrounding-space is fully understood, more citizens of the world may perceive their interconnection with fellow humans who also arise out of a nonmaterial background sea of energy. That common source creates our every atom and sustains us in every moment.

At the NEM board meeting the word “consciousness” was heard more often than technology. It’s a chicken-and-egg situation, long-time researcher Wade Frazier said. Which comes first – a higher level of awareness out of which responsible use of powerful new technologies would flow, or the knowledge of new energy science catalzying human consciousness toward an abundance paradigm and awareness of our interconnection with all life?

Frazier concludes that New Energy, raising human consciousness and healing the planet are joined at the hip, and those who say we have to become fully conscious before we can pursue free energy may be in deep emotional denial. In the discussion he agreed with physicist Mark Comings that there is peril and even some seeming illogical quantum leaps in going straight to zero-point energy while bypassing highly-efficient solar.

“But the political-economic dynamics are so stacked against innovation in energy that I think there needs to be some critical-mass event/technology to overcome the truly awesome inertia.”

Inertia exists, Frazier added, not only in the establishment, but in opinion leaders who say they want solutions but stand in the way of powerful solutions and even devote a great deal of energy to ignoring them.

Citizens’ involvement in education about new energy sources may be an idea whose time has come. One such group flourished for a couple of years in Vancouver, Canada, until key members relocated.

Across the ocean in the UK, a Committee for Future Energies is planning recommendations to the European Parliament. They describe the ubiquitous source as “Field Energy”. The Committee will suggest how the European Union could fight global pollution and create energy equality among nations. Such changes will have widespread economic implications, especially reorganisation of energy supply and dismantling of old equipment, says Steven Lawrence of Oxford.

In addition to emerging grassroots interest in new energy, another factor improved in the past ten years is the knowledge level among the experimenters.

The NEM meeting on the west coast expressed support for the work of Eugene Mallove, Ph.D., on the other side of the country. He is columnist for this magazine, editor of Infinite Energy and founder of the New Energy Foundation. Grassroots education could be one way of helping his efforts.

As Mallove points out, there are successfully replicated New Energy experiments today. They are just ignored. Among such inventions he writes about are the working low energy nuclear reaction (LENR) device which Dr. Mitchell Swartz built, and the pulsed-abnormal-glow-discharge device and aether-powered motors of Dr. Paulo and Alexandra Correa in Canada.
On January 21, 2004, Harold Aspden was granted a British patent on an Electrical Power Generating Apparatus. The patent claims that electricity production may be sustained by drawing energy from the vacuum medium — the non-material field that is apparently in highly energetic spinning swirling motion. Russian scientists call it the torsion field. Aspen’s patent is serving as a tutorial for inventors. He says Geoffrey Spence of England made a similar working device.

Few in the public know about “radiant energy” – a non-destructive type of electricity. But in the energy underground, inventors are studying books such as The Free Energy Secrets of Cold Electricity by Dr. Peter Lindemann and Lost Science by Gerry Vassilatos. Electrical-power pioneer Nikola Tesla pioneered Radiant Energy. Tesla could have given us decentralized energy technology, but moguls had already bought copper mines for stringing wires across the country and didn’t want anything to disrupt profits. From then on, Tesla was subtly sidelined.

Mass-media portrayals leave viewers with the impression that Tesla in his old age was fixated on particle beam weaponry. That may be partly true, but he was so much more than a stereotyped mad scientist. Television shows build up that stereotype by emphasizing his lightning bolts and sending power through the air, images of shooting down warheads, a Star Wars shield, Einstein’s so-called generosity in forgiving Tesla for being a science heretic. Visuals and script paint neither an attractive nor a completely true picture of Tesla. Nothing is said about Tesla’s knowledge of how to tap into the aether.

The most widely-shown TV show was based on a book which did briefly mention Tesla’s belief that the universe has a deeper wave-like nature. In the book a sidebar treats Tesla’s utterings about a primary-substance filling-all-space “ether” dismissively; it says Tesla began using terminology of Eastern philosophies after meeting Swami Vivikenanda. Tesla’s 1930 quote was given, in which he says all things come from a luminiferous ether acted upon by a life-giving Prana or creative force, but Master of Lightning stopped there. Vassilatos on the other hand tells us about transformative aether-based energy discoveries by Tesla and other Lost Science pioneers.

This writer has no right to criticize script writers who may be unaware of other literature about Tesla. My own mea culpa realization began too late, when researcher/experimenter Toby Grotz objected to my written portrayal of “Tesla technology” as I understood it in 1995 from many sources. It’s not much comfort now to know I was not the only writer to mis-read Nikola Tesla even though I read stacks of books and articles. Years ago I watched a Borderland Science video about Tesla’s later years, narrated by Vassilatos, which should have tipped me off. But at the time I dismissed it as melodrama.

What then did writers overlook about these pioneers? We didn’t understand radiant energy nor the history of qualitative science. Vassilatos on the other hand goes back to the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries to Baron Karl von Reichenbach, to begin chronicling investigators of life-related energies. If students everywhere were exposed to the awe-inspiring lost science of Reichenbach, Nathan Stubblefield, T.H. Moray and others whom Vassilatos writes about, I believe a renaissance could begin. It would not be materialistic, but instead would be life-oriented. The Correas website contains a wealth of knowledge about life-force science.

The emergence of a New Energy Movement is timely. The disconnect between the mass-consciousness world — as created on TV newscasts and in print media – and the reality of new science grows wider daily. However, hope also comes from the prodigious sharing of information on the internet among new energy researchers such as on

Brian O’Leary Reinheriting the Earth:Awakening to Sustainable Solutions and Greater Truths, link from

Peter Lindemann, The Free Energy Secrets of Cold Electricity, from
Gerry Vassilatos, Lost Science, Adventures Unlimited Press



  1. Scott McKie says:

    Jeanne — this is for you.
    Scott McKie

  2. I would like to believe this but their are too many scams about free energy, as many as gas savers. I think by now if free energy was a reality the Russians or Chinese would have it like the nuclear technology. Energy weapons is another field that would involve ZPE.

    So to all you green seekers out there, good luck on your quest, but be prepared for the reality of futility. Harnessing ZPE could be as impossible as warp drive.

  3. Mitch Sprague says:

    Like many others, I don’t have the time to wait until 2050. We need this technology now. I would like nothing better than to see it cause upset with the people who now suppress ways to change our ways to make power. I’d feel real good knowing the release of this technology would put a real hurt on the Rothchilds & the New world Order trying to enslave us. All the more reason to have it now.

  4. Hello Jeanne. I enjoy your articles in Atlantis Rising and I think you’re doing a bang-up job filling Marlove’s shoes. I am reading your book right now, “Break Through Power” and find it fascinating. I would like to get in touch with Scott McKie concerning his city to be built in the Pacific Northwest. I am retired from a Public Utility and operated 500 MW Power Plants in New Mexico. Twenty years ago we (my associates) were discussing the generation of electricity using “Hole Flow” or VARS… it would seem the Scotts gone some way with it or somthing similar? I want to help and would like to speak with him concerning the same.

    Thank you,


Speak Your Mind


Return to top of page

Copyright © 2013 · Website support provided by Host Bee · Log out