Free Energy

[Rick Deckard]

I've read quite a bit about zero-point energy devices and cold fusion experiments - if alien contact is the number 1 conspiracy then the suppression of 'free' energy technology is a close second.

I'm pretty much convinced that 'free' energy devices have been around for several decades and that the 'powers that be' don't want you or I to have one. The patent office is pretty much a form of control that prevents 'undesirable' technologies from getting to the market.

I dug up this documentary from 1995 by the UK "Equinox" team - this program was shown on the UK's "Channel 4" terrestrial TV channel in that year. Unsurprisingly, the technologies shown seem to have disappeared.

What is clear from this video is the way that 'established' science is pretty much a religion and those that dare to explore ideas outside of the accepted 'limits' are branded 'heretics' and are pushed out of 'the loop' by loss of funding, discrediting tactics or worse - it's a very sad state of affairs indeed. Once again, the financial interests of an elite few take precedence over the future well-being of the human race and this planet we call 'home'.

The program is 50 minutes long and has a prologue and epilogue by Arthur C Clark.

Here's the link - I think it makes interesting viewing.

 

[Woody Sideman]

Hi Rick

You forgot to include the link. It's

Equinox - It runs on water (Free Energy 1995)

I'm presuming your motivation for discussing this is a derivative of the Disclosure Project. Anyway, the TV programme is a pretty good show.

You may want to check out this little program:

Horizon - Parallel Universes

If you can find it (I can't) the 'Horizon - Time Trip' programme is also very interesting viewing.

Y'know, these are real scientists, doing real things and not hiding away in something secret. I can't vouch for their sanity though. The guy that wants to start his own universe in his garage might require some persuasion to stop, just in case. He says it's quite a safe thing to do. To tell you the truth, I'm not that convinced about the safety aspect of it.

Unfortunately, there's a problem with these Horizon programmes. If you actually watch them and then really think about the implications, then, .... wow!

It doesn't really matter that ET came along 80,000 years ago and stuck an extra 223 genes into our system (yeah, that's worth a check at the Genome Project). What really matters is whether you have enough self confidence to really think about the content and the consequences.

I am quite self assured and don't really get too concerned about my passenger (what you might refer to as your spirit, or soul, if your religious). After all, it's just
a paying customer enjoying the white knuckle ride that I refer to as my life. As far as I'm concerned, I'm just happy that whatever computer program is running me is allowing me to be independant.

Woody

 

[Rick Deckard]

Hi Rick

You forgot to include the link.

Shhh - I hid it in the phrase "Here's the link"

But, I forgive yer for missing it - the link colour doesn't stand out very well from the rest of the text...

You from the UK? I've been watching Horizon/Arena/Equinox for years - gotta love those wacky scientists! ;D

I'll have a look at that other programme you posted tomorrow - bedtime for me right now

 

[Woody Sideman]

Shhh - I hid it in the phrase "Here's the link"

But, I forgive yer for missing it - the link colour doesn't stand out very well from the rest of the text...

You from the UK? I've been watching Horizon/Arena/Equinox for years - gotta love those wacky scientists!

And so you did.

Ha ha, It never occurred to me that this forum is a straight hot metal format. I also enjoy all of the TV programmes you mentioned, though I'd hardly refer to Arena as a scientific thing, it's more about the arts.

Woody

 

[Rick Deckard]

Yeah, you're right about Arena - it was at the front of my mind 'cos I recently found a long lost Arena documentary about the works of Philip K Dick on Google video - the quality and format of the programme is up there with Horizon and Equinox though.

 

[auntiegrav]

I've read quite a bit about zero-point energy devices and cold fusion experiments - if alien contact is the number 1 conspiracy then the suppression of 'free' energy technology is a close second.

I'm pretty much convinced that 'free' energy devices have been around for several decades and that the 'powers that be' don't want you or I to have one. The patent office is pretty much a form of control that prevents 'undesirable' technologies from getting to the market.

I think that when you switch #1 and #2, you start to understand the significance of the confusion around aliens. The one answer we know for sure is that someone doesn't want anyone to know all of the truth. Any secrecy about aliens seems to be enhanced with envelopes of denials, regardless of whether the denials are about real or imagined physics. The more time we spend investigating the denials and the aliens, the less time we spend investigating actual physics....or the mathematical illusions of QED and QRT models.
The security doesn't have to be perfect as long as the physics is unbelievable. Infinite Energy Magazine (back issues are best: ever since Dr. Mallove was murdered, the articles have lost their edge.)

The patent office is funny (funny wierd, not funny "Ha Ha"). Global Innovation/Patent Quality Metrics
It is funny in how it deals with all the regular patents. I have heard some strange stories about suppressed ideas. There is really no way to know how many, since they 'go black' before ever reaching the public part of the process. I'm surprised that the level of incompetence at the patent office is able to somehow 'brighten up' as soon as somebody applies for a patent on over unity devices or cold fusion processes. The usual examiners barely speak English.

 

[aaron]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060818/bs_afp/irelandscienceenergy I saw this on slashdot a few minutes ago. I thought it was good grist for this thread.

 

[Rick Deckard]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060818/bs_afp/irelandscienceenergy I saw this on slashdot a few minutes ago. I thought it was good grist for this thread.

Thanks for the link aaron - it was an interesting read. But, if they don't get a patent for it pretty soon, someone else will - and then it too will disappear. BUT, they can't have a patent unless they can explain how the process works and since it 'breaks' the sacred "conservation of energy" law, they won't be able to explain it to the satisfaction of the 'established' scientific community. What a pity - the conspirators score another goal for their monopolising strategies!

One of the basic principles of physics is that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, it can only change form.

I once had an argument with my physics teacher about this - I said, "if energy cannot be created or destroyed then where did it come from and what determines how much energy is in the universe?" - he said - "the big bang created the universe and all that is in it".

In other words, the official story taught in schools (well in 1980s at least) is that they just don't know - but it is convenient for energy industries that energy cannot be created "from nothing" - after all, if we could create energy from nothing, we wouldn't need the utility companies...

I recommend this book "The Scientist, the Madman, the Thief and Their Lightbulb: The Search for Free Energy" by Keith Tutt (ISBN: 0684020904) - it looks at the claims of various inventors of 'free energy' devices and examines why these devices have not yet reached the market.

 

[Woody Sideman]

Ah Rick

Methinks aaron might have found something there. You have to remember that we Irish have our own way of doing things, as you can see here:

Mike Browne's Blog

I suppose that when Sean McCarthy, Steorn's chief executive officer, eventually designs his first free energy spaceship he will, no doubt, include a peat burning stove in the corner to make sure the pilot doesn't get cold.

Woody

 

[auntiegrav]

Thanks for the link aaron - it was an interesting read. But, if they don't get a patent for it pretty soon, someone else will - and then it too will disappear. BUT, they can't have a patent unless they can explain how the process works and since it 'breaks' the sacred "conservation of energy" law, they won't be able to explain it to the satisfaction of the 'established' scientific community. What a pity - the conspirators score another goal for their monopolising strategies!

Actually, if they can't explain it, but it works only for them, then they should keep it a trade secret and just build something and lease it out in a sealed box with a power outlet on it.
Patents only last 17 years, but if you come up with something that you can keep a secret, a patent is the last thing you want, since you are forced to explain it so that other people can use it after your term is up. The benefit to the inventor is limited monopoly, and the benefit to the government is to expand the GDP. That's the purpose of the patent system; the quid of the quid pro quo is that you have to give your technology away after the patent expires.

"It's Manifest Destiny, man! You can't fight it!" --from "Night at the Museum" (my kids love that line)

AG

 

[The Hawk]

This bothers me..

If something this logical and simple actually works like it appears to work and actually creates enough energy to do what it says:
"The 300kw generator has the ability to produce 290kw per hour constantly.
The units comes complete with alternator control panel and case."
" Continuous power.
· No blackouts
· No fuel
· 5 years guarantee conditional"

"enough to power a house"


I'll hurt someone..
If the powers that be have managed to supress something so simplistic
(I thought up the same idea when I was like 10 for "free energy" btw)
Then heads deserve to roll..

 

[Aaron LeClair]

Speaking of suppression of clean technologies etc. Anyone seen "Who killed the Electric Car?" Yet? I been wanting to, but figured it would make me mad, and I need little help with that.

 

[KorMan]

This bothers me..

It should bother anyone with even a basic grasp of science. 300 KW is 402 horsepower, and this thing is supposed to be capable of that output without fuel? SU-U-U-URE it is.

I'd challenge the builder to suspend it by ropes outdoors and make it run.

<hr>
TANSTAAFL. "Free" energy is on a par with perpetual motion machines and pills that turn water into gasoline. Fact: it is impossible to get as much energy out of a system as is being put into it. Getting more energy out is on the far side of impossible.

It's not a conspiracy. The laws of physics are inviolable.

 

[KorMan]

Speaking of suppression of clean technologies etc. Anyone seen "Who killed the Electric Car?" Yet? I been wanting to, but figured it would make me mad, and I need little help with that.

It died of disinterest. If no one wants to buy the damn things, they won't sell. It's the free market in action.

<hr>
Nuclear energy is the cleanest, safest, most reliable form of base-load power generation available with existing technology. With breeder reactors, we have enough nuclear fuel available now to power the US for several hundred years. One must ask why those who push for "clean energy" are rabidly opposed to it.

Here's the answer from a couple of the guiding darks of the "small is beautiful" cult:

"It would be little short of disastrous for us to discover a source of clean, cheap, abundant energy because of what we might do with it. We ought to be looking for energy sources that don't give us the excesses of concentrated energy with which we could do mischief to each other."
-- Amory Lovins, Mother Earth News, 11-12/77

"In fact, giving society cheap abundant energy at this point would be the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun."
-- Paul Erlich, Not Man Apart (Friends of The Earth), Vol 5, No. 18, Sept 1975

Thirty-plus years later, the same mindset drives the ecowackos. They don't want clean, safe, abundant energy. They want chronic energy shortages, with them dictating who gets what. IOW, they like political and economic power.

Forget the highly-touted "alternatives". They are valuable as small point-of-use sources, but they cannot meet the base-load capacity needs of a rapidly growing economy powered by reliable electricity.

As for zero-point energy and cold fusion, they belong in conspiracy forums. They're crackpot notions that are laughed at by real scientists because they are laughable.

And re "suppression", the logical approach would be to call a press conference in an open, neutral location and demonstrate working systems. Claiming, "This idea works, but Big Business won't allow it to be used!" is utter nonsense that covers up the BS Factor.

 

[The Hawk]

Nice job assuming too much, even though I spoke as though I was talking about that one in particular; obviously not. That's a demo model of a small one stripped of the outside to show how the core works.

 

[CapnG]

Forget the highly-touted "alternatives". They are valuable as small point-of-use sources, but they cannot meet the base-load capacity needs of a rapidly growing economy powered by reliable electricity.

That's crap. In the first place, saying "forget" the alternatives is just goddam irresponsible. We know this stuff works, we just need to find ways to make it work better. And secondly, if the alternatives make good "point-of-use-sources" then you simply need to increase the number of output sources to meet the demand.

 

[KorMan]

Nice job assuming too much, even though I spoke as though I was talking about that one in particular; obviously not. That's a demo model of a small one stripped of the outside to show how the core works.

Perpetual motion is a myth, regardless of scale. If there is no energy being put into the system, then no energy can be taken out of it. The laws of physics disallow it, and wishing otherwise is meaningless.

<hr>

That's crap.

Just once, kid, I wish you'd actually learn about something before opining about it.

In the first place, saying "forget" the alternatives is just goddam irresponsible.

And if that were my only sentence, it would be. However, the sentence that follows it relates directly to it, and states that the "alternatives" are NOT useful for BASE-LOAD CAPACITY, i.e., the generating capacity required to meet the continuous power demands of the nation. That is fact. Diffuse, weather-dependent energy sources are useless for it. At best they might serve as peak-load generation.

We know this stuff works ...

No one says that it doesn't.

... we just need to find ways to make it work better.

The problem with wind and solar energy is that they are completely reliant on weather and other factors that limit their utility. Of what value is a windmill when the wind isn't blowing? Of what use is a solar panel during the night or on a cloudy day?

I could run the numbers on what it would take to replace one 1000-megawatt power plant with a solar array. I could list all the factors such as the cosine effect, atmospheric absorption, heliotropic arrays, the massive infrastructure, the toxic waste from manufacturing the solar panels, etcetera, etcetera. However, I suspect that the effort would be wasted.

And secondly, if the alternatives make good "point-of-use-sources" then you simply need to increase the number of output sources to meet the demand.

Just like that, hey? So if one bakery can provide bread for 100 people, then all we need to supply bread for 300 million people is three million bakeries.

One ongoing problem with the "alternatives" (and with any power generation facility) is the NIMBY Syndrome - Not In MY Back Yard! Between files on this computer and paper files in notebooks, I have records of EVERY "alternative" being opposed by the same people who demand using alternative sources. They have opposed windmills, hydropower, biomass (wood-burning plants), and solar arrays. They support their "alternatives" only until they become practical.

Fact: for small, point-of-use applications such as powering remote electronic equipment far away from the nearest utility lines, solar arrays are ideal. For powering cities, they're useless, and they cannot be made otherwise.

And try putting up a windmill where other people can see it.

 

[CapnG]

Just like that, hey? So if one bakery can provide bread for 100 people, then all we need to supply bread for 300 million people is three million bakeries.

Er, you mean 30,000, no? Or is my math that bad?

One ongoing problem with the "alternatives" (and with any power generation facility) is the NIMBY Syndrome - Not In MY Back Yard! Between files on this computer and paper files in notebooks, I have records of EVERY "alternative" being opposed by the same people who demand using alternative sources. They have opposed windmills, hydropower, biomass (wood-burning plants), and solar arrays. They support their "alternatives" only until they become practical.

Then people need to grow the hell up. No omlettes without broken eggs, no simulataneous having and eating of cake, no brave new world without some goddam sacrafice. I'm so tired of this sh*t. If people want that sparkling future we all seem to have collectively been dreaming of for the past century they're gonna have to let go of these outmoded, archaic mindsets. For the love of monkeys, it's 2007!!!

Fact: for small, point-of-use applications such as powering remote electronic equipment far away from the nearest utility lines, solar arrays are ideal. For powering cities, they're useless, and they cannot be made otherwise.

And yet more and more I hear about people who's homes are "off the grid" even selling power back to the hydro company. I'm not buying your bill of goods. A skyscraper is essentially a box covered in glass. You make most of that glass a solar panel and you're in business. You do that with every one of them and you're gold. Sure, you may not get the city off the grid entirely, you're cut the dependancy so far down it's negligible.

And try putting up a windmill where other people can see it.

Again, people need to get over it. Seriously.

Now, before you get all frowny at this "kid" and his "idealistic ramblings" let me set a few things straight for you: I'm not some pie-in-the-sky loon who thinks these things are all going to magically wash away oil dependancy, remove the need for nuclear plants or coal burning or any other such nonsense. What I'm saying is we need to start doing ALL of the alternative stuff in a big way NOW in addition to all the conventional stuff. Not in 20 years, not when it's "finanacially viable", NOW. Technology improves over time, increases efficiency, lowers cost, all that good stuff but you have to actually be seriously USING the technology first before those factors come into play. And then, when those improvements do come, then we can start to ween off oil and coal. I don't care if happens in my lifetime, so long as the effort is made.

 

[The Hawk]

I agree with you CapnG people need to think big..

YTMND - Good thing we have Jesus

The primary reason I have a Democratic slant is because I believe in regulating corporations and offering incentives for them to push for green technology. For the majority of corporations, no matter who is in charge of them they will not lower their fossil fuel use in any huge manner.
Why? Because it's financially needed for competition; NEEDED.
So they won't and can't. It's a must for regulations to be imposed on them as a whole so the "need" is no longer there.
Even better would be international changes.. Personally I'm not worried about what harsher regulation will do to our economy. Economy will regain but our environment may not. The human footprint on this planet is growing out of control. All one has to do is look at google Earth or look at all the crap we are putting into the air. Even if global warming were based on junk science as some noisemakers love to pretend, ultimately it doesn't matter. Humans like all animals on this planet also need sustainability. Fossil fuels are not sustainable.

 

[auntiegrav]

Speaking of suppression of clean technologies etc. Anyone seen "Who killed the Electric Car?" Yet? I been wanting to, but figured it would make me mad, and I need little help with that.

It died of disinterest. If no one wants to buy the damn things, they won't sell. It's the free market in action.

There is no free market, get used to it. The Corporatocracy killed the electric car, back in 19-ought whatever, when cheap oil was discovered and the lead trust killed the Edison nickel-iron battery and then didn't keep up with the oil trust.

<hr>
Nuclear energy is the cleanest, safest, most reliable form of base-load power generation available with existing technology. With breeder reactors, we have enough nuclear fuel available now to power the US for several hundred years.

BWAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!! That's a good one! LOL
Tell it to the people in Japan, who built their 'safe' reactor on an island on the Ring of Fire. You can't go very wrong with wind, solar, or manual labor. You CAN go VERY wrong with nuclear power. In the long term, anything that CAN go wrong, WILL go wrong, and any engineer who thinks he can build something completely foolproof has never met a complete fool.

Here's the answer from a couple of the guiding darks of the "small is beautiful" cult:

I'ts not a cult, it's the future, whether we want to believe it or not. The meek shall inherit what's left after the geeks get done poisoning it for stock options.

"It would be little short of disastrous for us to discover a source of clean, cheap, abundant energy because of what we might do with it. We ought to be looking for energy sources that don't give us the excesses of concentrated energy with which we could do mischief to each other."
-- Amory Lovins, Mother Earth News, 11-12/77

"In fact, giving society cheap abundant energy at this point would be the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun."
-- Paul Erlich, Not Man Apart (Friends of The Earth), Vol 5, No. 18, Sept 1975

Thirty-plus years later, the same mindset drives the ecowackos. They don't want clean, safe, abundant energy. They want chronic energy shortages, with them dictating who gets what. IOW, they like political and economic power.

Forget the highly-touted "alternatives". They are valuable as small point-of-use sources, but they cannot meet the base-load capacity needs of a rapidly growing economy powered by reliable electricity.

Um. What EXACTLY do you think people should be FOR? Do you have any idea what to teach our children about life when the only 'value' they see is Consumption? Do you know the difference between a Humvee and a loaf of bread? (If not, then don't let your wife send you to the store.)
Small, point of use sources are all that human beings actually NEED. Stop watching the current consumption listings and looook Arouuunnnnd at the local county fairgrounds. What do you see that people actually NEED to do? Centralized power, gridlock, highways, personal automobiles, most appliances, security systems, gasoline, shopping malls, etc, are mostly there for people to make money and buy clothes so they can go to work to make money to buy clothes and cars to go to work. Very little of our consumption is necesary to the long term accomplishments of the human beings we SAY we care so much about, but really, your Corporatic 'Leaders' (take me to your Lizard) only want them to work and pay.

As for zero-point energy and cold fusion, they belong in conspiracy forums. They're crackpot notions that are laughed at by real scientists because they are laughable.

Would these be the 'real' scientists who say that Flouride is good for your teeth because there was a reduction in cavities at Oak Ridge, Tennessee (the employees lost all their teeth)? The 'real' scientists who think that spraying anti-growth chemicals on our crops is good for our health because it makes the chemical companies more profitable and eliminates the 'drudgery' of farm labor? The 'real' scientists who tell you that cows should be fed the waste products from breweries instead of eating grass? The 'real' scientists who insist that the majority is always right? The 'real' scientists who said you could keep driving on a bridge that is "structurally deficient" if you inspect it every so often instead of fixing it? Here's a clue: those aren't scientists, those are accountants in white coats.

And re "suppression", the logical approach would be to call a press conference in an open, neutral location and demonstrate working systems. Claiming, "This idea works, but Big Business won't allow it to be used!" is utter nonsense that covers up the BS Factor.

Yeah. you're right, I'm sorry. There are plenty of honest newspapers that would put it on the front page when someone discovers how to separate hydrogen and oxygen from water with very little power (Stanley Meyer is dead, by the way). If they do print it, they'll print it right next to the Hummer ads, buried in the Sports/world section, where people only read the scores and the strip-joint advertisements.