PDA

View Full Version : The fight for 'Free Energy'



Dorjezigzag
8th January 2012, 09:52
My neighbour is a high ranking member of the UK green party and I questioned why they never discuss the possibilities of new Tesla technologies or cold fusion. Firstly he did not know who Tesla was. I gave him a few intro links and explained it was a huge area where he would need to do some research. In quotations you will see the replies from him and fellow greens, including respected academics, I think you will not believe some of these replies. Later I will also show you my replies to the replies.

This whole experience got me thinking how forums like Project Avalon can be a force for change. Firstly we can exchange relevant information dealing with relevant issues, but also the forum is a medium for civilised debate. In discussing issues we enhance are debating skills through practice. Developing debating techniques which we can use, when engaging with those who are unfamiliar with the knowledge that we have acquired. I think now is the time that we bring a lot of these topics to the greater public and try to overcome objections. On the forum we can discuss the objections we come across and find the best ways to overcome these objections.
So I would welcome peoples feedback and what they could add to the debate I am currently engaged in. Can you recommend videos, books, papers that would convince those of the scientific and academic mainstream.

Please be aware that the below in quotations are not my words.



So I did some due diligence on the internet, and I also asked some of the brightest people I know for their opinion. I’m afraid I don’t buy it and nor do they. Thought you might be interested in the conversation below.
I think it makes more sense to concentrate on reducing our energy use, reducing consumption and investing in renewables we know work.
Absolutely. The story usually goes like this. Hardworking scientist discovers new form of free energy machine and tells someone of the amazing device he has come up with. Next day the FBI arrive and seize the lot and take it all away and threaten him not to say anything. If only the FBI hadn't of confiscated it all, we'd have free energy. Yes, or perhaps more likely it was nonsense, and there were other reasons the FBI showed up? The other story is the "the oil companies buy up all the patents and hide them". By this stage, it is far far far more likely that these things don't work, can't work, will never work, and that this is all a fantasy. The new film 'Thrive' which I'll review when I've seen it, is all built around this, that there is a massive conspiracy in place to keep free energy from the people. But imagine, if you were a scientist that could prove free energy? You'd win the Nobel prize. You'd have rewritten the laws of physics. I don't believe that scientists would come up with something that might win them a Nobel prize and then sell the patent to Exxon. I think I mentioned in the Handbook the guy I met at a talk once who came up and enthusiastically said "have you heard? There's a guy in Australia who has invented a car that runs on water!" I had to tell him that with parts of Oz experiencing dreadful desertification and not having seen rain for years, that that struck me as the most enormously socially and ecologically irresponsible invention I had ever heard of, far worse than petrol. He rather quietly slipped back into the crowd never to reappear....
Yeah, what Rob said. I've had a lot of people turning up to talks with these kinds of claims, which are universally based on some websites that they've read uncritically. Occasionally some group claims that they're going to run a demonstration to great fanfare, and then it all goes wrong for some 'unrelated to the fundamentals' reason, they mutter about making a few refinements and you never hear from them again. The last one I heard about went wrong because 'the studio lights were too hot'.

One claim I often hear is that this is all viciously suppressed and that scientists and inventors are afraid to publish on it for fear of reprisals. These days I reply that I am personally very concerned about the energy crisis, and that if anyone supplies me with the requisite evidence I will happily risk life and limb and write up the disproof of the laws of thermodynamics for any scientific journal. Sadly, my bluff is yet to be called, and I have not yet had my chance to be the new Einstein...

All of which is not to say that Tesla wasn't a brilliant chap of course - he was. And Alexis, if you do decide to look into this further and have any more specific questions, I'd be happy to talk them over, but I don't recommend wasting your time.

Also, bear in mind that as Rob hinted, even if there were the possibility of some kind 'free energy machine', it would still need to fulfil a whole host of other criteria before being the miracle energy source that stops us having to concern ourselves with 'peak energy'. My list is below, for your reference.

On the other hand, 'free energy' advocates seem to consider invoking those two words quite enough to preclude any necessity for them to engage with reading or thinking about the energy crisis at all.. v much in the same way that 'solar flares', 'volcanic CO2' or 'IPCC conspiracy' are invoked with regard to climate change in fact...

The beautiful thing about conspiracy of course is that even if you can't find any evidence for it that shows just how deep it runs... it's unfalsifiable
PHYSICAL CRITERIA * Reserves (infinite? limited? infinitely renewing up to a certain rate of consumption?)* Flow rates (how much energy can be released per hour/day/year? Can it be scaled up? How long does it take to scale up? How easy is it to do so?)* EROEI (Energy Return on Energy Invested)* Usefulness of energy product, e.g. heat, electricity... (energy density, transportability, supply/demand management, ease of storage...)* 'Waste' products (are these useful feedstocks for other processes? Does managing them itself consume energy?)* Environmental impacts (local impacts, global impacts...)* Location of energy resource (relative to location of demand)* Infrastructure required (does it already exist? how long will it take to bring online? Is the infrastructure resilient/complex?)* Technically mature and understood (proven track record, problems well understood, experienced staff available, ease of maintenance, durability, ease of replicability)* Resilience (resilient to different possible futures, does it require stable temperatures, sea levels, human civilisation etc, could the technology be understood and operated by unqualified staff/uninitiated future generations)NON-PHYSICAL CRITERIA* Financial cost and finance availability* Psychological behavioural factors (does the energy source encourage/support other desirable/undesirable behaviours, or shift our cultural approach/narrative?)* Political and security issues* Macro-economic implications
On 3 January 2012 22:45, Rob wrote:Personally speaking I don’t buy it. First of all there are the laws of thermodynamics that you can't make something out of nothing, and perpetual motion is not possible. Period. Secondly, there is a lot of talk about Tesla, and Schauberger and all the free energy greats, but very little to show for it. No-one has managed to replicate what was claimed for Schauberger since his death, and none of his models remain. Anything that is touted as working is talked about with a big fanfare and on closer investigation crumbles to dust. Thirdly, the field is awash with cranks and loons and con-men, check out this list for example. As we enter the end of the age of cheap energy we will see more and more of this stuff, in the same way that ends of millenia produce end of worlders... free energy people are like the snake oil salesmen of our times as far as I can see. Then finally I think there is the question which is rarely addressed by free energy types who see energy in isolation from all the other aspects of how the world works. Let's say the US tomorrow found a commercially viable, easily scaleable, rapidly roll-outable (is that a word?) free energy source, too cheap to meter. I would argue that that would be the most ecologically catastrophic thing in history. It would be used to drain the aquifers quicker, deplete other resources quicker, etc, etc, to further domination and imperialism and so on. In short, even if free energy were technically possible (which it isn't), we are not mature enough for such a thing. It is only resource scarcity that is forcing us to some level of awareness that we live on a finite planet. We've had, in effect, free energy for 150 years, and what we've done with it doesn't give the greatest degree of confidence that we would be good custodians for another one...


In a new post I will put my reply to the replies

Dorjezigzag
8th January 2012, 10:02
I recommended this book for starters.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Scientist-Madman-Thief-their-Lightbulb/dp/0743449762

Dorjezigzag
8th January 2012, 10:12
In reply I took certain quotes and replied

I think it makes more sense to concentrate on reducing our energy use, reducing consumption and investing in renewables we know work.
You’ve done your recycling, signed up to your energy plan powered by windmills, you’ve planted your tomatoes. What do you do now? Perhaps research other potentials?
You said your self that we are going to be running short of energy by what was it 2016, are the above going to really solve that? Be honest,
They say the winner gets to write the history books and don’t you think it s funny you had never heard of Tesla until I mentioned him. Cold Fusion is another potential
There are a lot of scientific papers out there written by people with impressive credentials, do you think they enjoy swimming against the flow of popular scientific opinion. Just keep an open mind is all I am saying.
Firstly do we get sent an energy bill from the sun, do the rivers charge us by the litre.
Cost is a human concept.
When I refer to ‘free energy lets not get into a side tracking issue of linguistics or semantics.
I am referring to technology that is potentially a vastly more efficient and cleaner means of generating power than exists today

Often the word ‘conspiracy theory’ is used to prevent further investigation
con•spir•a•cy/kənˈspirəsē/
Noun: 1. A secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful.
2. The action of plotting or conspiring.

Lets take a group who have an agenda within the energy market GEC electric, as well as being one of the largest suppliers of armaments in the world they also happen to design nuclear power stations. They also happen to own a large stake in a media corporation called NBC coincidence? Well the news they present perhaps have an agenda attached to it? If there is no war how will their business be. When one of the PowerStation’s they designs begins polluting the planet, will they be impartial? Is this plan to manipulate the truth harmful. Will people die.
Well then they are involved in a conspiracy and if calling them such makes me a conspiracy theorist then I wear that badge with pride. But actually it is not theory it is fact so I am a conspiracy factist.
Follow the money on all the big media corporations and you will find a similar story.


People turning up to talks with these kinds of claims, which are universally based on some websites that they've read uncritically
Who are you to judge that they were uncritical?
O.k so people are turning up to talks discussing this, if this is a subject that people are bringing up don’t you feel this a subject you should be more open minded about so that you can discuss it more intelligently. Information is not just on web sites, there are many books and scientific papers published, there is a lot of science behind it.
I remain sceptical about this area, I question everything, but I personally see enough evidence that there is something behind this. This does not just take a morning of research, paying particular attention to the nay Sayers it takes months if not years of study with an open mind


If anyone supplies me with the requisite evidence I will happily risk life and limb and write up the disproof of the laws of thermodynamics for any scientific journal. Sadly, my bluff is yet to be called, and I have not yet had my chance to be the new Einstein
Do your own research
If someone can create a machine based on Tesla principles or cold fusion they do not need to come to you to write their results for scientific journals they can quite easily do that for themselves indeed if you bothered to properly look you will find that there are a lot of scientific papers on this subject, not just ‘conspiracy’ websites. I suggest you need to go to these people rather than they to you. You seriously want to look at the science with an open mind. I don’t know if you have experienced any violent intimidation or torture but I would suggest you would not ‘happily’ risk life and limb.


First of all there are the laws of thermodynamics that you can't make something out of nothing, and perpetual motion is not possible.
Non-argument
There used to be the law that the earth was flat. Many great scientists have gone against the grain of general accepted fact. As Gandhi usually goes something like this First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win


Free energy people are like the snake oil salesmen of our times as far as I can see.
False allegation
O.k this is a particular weak argument, you can always tell when someone does not have a strong argument because they ridicule and name call.
O.k Tesla believed in a new energy was he a snake oil sales person.
Why would people spend so much of their own time and money on researching, building prototypes writing scientific papers if their only motivation was to hoodwink and extort money like a snake oil salesman. If they wanted to con people and not live up to there promises surely they would just go find an appropriate corporation or perhaps go into politics.


Let's say the US tomorrow found a commercially viable, easily scaleable, rapidly roll-outable (is that a word?) free energy source, too cheap to meter. I would argue that that would be the most ecologically catastrophic thing in history. It would be used to drain the aquifers quicker, deplete other resources quicker, etc, etc, to further domination and imperialism and so on. In short, even if free energy were technically possible (which it isn't), we are not mature enough for such a thing. It is only resource scarcity that is forcing us to some level of awareness that we live on a finite planet. We've had, in effect, free energy for 150 years, and what we've done with it doesn't give the greatest degree of confidence that we would be good custodians for another one..
That one takes the biscuit
If we correctly manage recourses there is no lack, there is plenty to go round so that everyone can enjoy a comfortable standard of living. The sense of lack is often created by corporations and speculators who can drive up prices because of a perceived lack.
The governments and people of rich industrialised countries are currently preoccupied by what many perceive to be an ‘energy crisis’. Rising global oil prices, concerns over energy security, and the urgent need to address climate change, are putting energy at the centre of public policy. But another energy crisis is affecting the lives of billions of people in developing countries, and it is largely being ignored.
The hidden crisis of energy poverty condemns billions of men, women and children in the developing world to continue to live in absolute poverty because they have no access to modern energy services; energy which is taken for granted in the developed world at the flick of a switch or the press of a button. Over 1.6 billion people – almost one third of humanity – have no electricity. This means they have no light in the evening, limited access to radio and modern communications, inadequate education and health facilities, and not enough power for their work and businesses.
Worldwide, more than 3 billion people depend on dirty, harmful solid fuels to meet their most basic energy need, cooking. 2.5 billion cook with biomass (i.e. wood, dung and agricultural residues) and over half a billion cook with coal.

etm567
8th January 2012, 10:31
Hmmmph. Lost my answer.

I said, thanks for doing this work. And, did you mention Col. Tom Bearden's website? www.cheniere.org. And that Bearden says that Maxwell's equations were simplified by one fellow named Heaviside. He says that the equations were originally written in a type of mathematics that not many people knew or know, and so Heaviside simplified them, and when he did that he left a great deal out. Here is just the first three paragraphs of that article:

http://www.cheniere.org/references/maxwell.htm


“Maxwell’s” vector equations taught in university are actually Heaviside’s truncated equations, and are only a simplified version of what Maxwell originally wrote.

The Maxwell-Heaviside theory of electrodynamics is now well over a century old, and is actually a serious truncation of Maxwell's 1865 theory of 20 equations in 20 unknowns (those are specifically listed in the original published paper in 1865). Because it was “tainted” with a higher group symmetry algebra (quaternions), even Maxwell himself came under intense pressure to simplify it, after the publication of the first edition of his famous Treatise in 1873. Consequently, Maxwell was rewriting and greatly “watering down” his own Treatise, having finished rewriting and greatly reducing some 80% of it at the time of his death in 1879. The second edition and third edition, therefore, are NOT the original Maxwellian theory, but a very serious truncation.

The further great “simplification” occurred by several scientists after Maxwell's death, in the 1880s, and notably by Heaviside, Hertz, and Gibbs. The equations taught today at university as “Maxwell's theory” are pale shadows, and those equations themselves are actually the equations and notations of Heaviside, further “symmetrically regauged” by Lorentz (which very neatly threw out all COP>1.0 EM systems taking their excess energy from the vacuum in the form of free asymmetrical regauging). At the time these altered Maxwell equations were adopted in general, it occurred in a short “debate” (mostly in the journal Nature) where the vectorists simply discarded the quaternists' work, etc. It was not done by “sweet science”, but by sheer dogma and individual preference for “simplicity”.

So our present classical theory still implicitly retains the material ether more than 100 years after that ether was falsified by the Michelson-Morley experiments. Not an equation was changed after those experiments! The “Maxwellians” as they are referred to, all originally assumed the material ether, which meant that they assumed there was not a single point in the entire universe that was devoid of mass. Consequently, the EM fields were—to them—obviously very material fields indeed; they ALWAYS occurred in mass (e.g., in the material ether). They were therefore erroneously assumed to be force fields. Mass is actually a component of force (though that is still ignored in classical mechanics as well); there is no separate mass-free force acting upon a separate mass, because the phrase “mass-free force” itself is an oxymoron). Many foundations physicists have discussed this “material origin of force”, so it is well-known by leading scientists (though seldom known to engineers).

[much more at link]

markpierre
8th January 2012, 11:21
Wow, conventional thinkers are dumbfounding. It's a different kind of reasoning but it works for them. I find it a bit inauthentic, but I'm probably not listening anyway.

Mistake #1. This guy doesn't know that 'energy' isn't produced by machines. It's gathered and converted. Energy does essentially come from thin air and there would logically be more than one single now ancient method for capturing it and converting it.

Intelligence doesn't imply reasonability, but you'd hope it would imply integrity.

And you'll find this alot and it's interesting.

In his first line of condescension all of his trustworthiness, and so all of his reason and credibility, all of his case and evidence and the value of his conclusions, and even his value system whatever it is, went bang.

Everytime he does that he undoes an entire cycle of the evolution of mind for himself.

I apologize Dorjezigzag, if this is a friend of yours. He doesn't sound like anyone's friend.

eaglespirit
8th January 2012, 11:55
Pick and Choose...they are all connected and all telling for those opening their eyes and ears and minds even just a bit:

I) Contact and the Expansion of Consciousness

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QLaqjQtU23o&feature=share


II)
Dulce Interview with Anthony Sanchez

http://imaginativeworlds.com/forum/showthread.php?22933-DULCE-INTERVIEW-Anthony-Sanchez-interviews-Colonel-X&highlight=



III)
Brandon Adams Interview James Gilliland Nate ECETI 12/24/11

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=wKhd614IqZo#!



...and a book to go along:

Fruit from a Poisonous Tree
http://www.amazon.com/Fruit-Poisonous-Tree-Mel-Stamper/dp/0595524966


IV)
Wade Frazier's Site:

http://ahealedplanet.net/home.htm

Dorjezigzag
8th January 2012, 12:34
I apologize Dorjezigzag, if this is a friend of yours. He doesn't sound like anyone's friend.

I know what you mean but in many ways he is a caring guy, and actions he has been involved in the past suggest on certain issue he has had integrety. It just shows how the whole concept of this technology shakes peoples world view up. I never considered before that those coming from a green perpective would have such a blockage to this information. They seem to view it as an attack. You can see why with the fossil fuel and nuclear industry that there would be resistance but this really surprised me.

Dorjezigzag
8th January 2012, 12:39
Pick and Choose...they are all connected and all telling for those opening their eyes and ears and minds even just a bit:

I) Contact and the Expansion of Consciousness

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QLaqjQtU23o&feature=share


II)
Dulce Interview with Anthony Sanchez

http://imaginativeworlds.com/forum/showthread.php?22933-DULCE-INTERVIEW-Anthony-Sanchez-interviews-Colonel-X&highlight=



III)
Brandon Adams Interview James Gilliland Nate ECETI 12/24/11

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=wKhd614IqZo#!



...and a book to go along:

Fruit from a Poisonous Tree
http://www.amazon.com/Fruit-Poisonous-Tree-Mel-Stamper/dp/0595524966


IV)
Wade Frazier's Site:

http://ahealedplanet.net/home.htm

For me all these links look really interesting and as you say they are all connected, I just know the moment I start talking about UFOs they are going to switch off though, in some ways I feel I have to adapt the argument to their mindset. I think that Wade Frazer site would be really good for them though

Seikou-Kishi
8th January 2012, 13:04
Lol, being a high ranking green party member is like being a giant among midgets, it's like... so what? lol

I think the green party is part of the controlled opposition; a way to let out environmental steam.

Dorjezigzag
8th January 2012, 13:18
Lol, being a high ranking green party member is like being a giant among midgets, it's like... so what? lol

I think the green party is part of the controlled opposition; a way to let out environmental steam.

Actually the green lobby is a lot more powerful than you may think and green politics are being used to bring in all sorts of taxes and curbs to freedoms. If you want change you have to engage in all areas of society, not just preach to the choir. I find it insane that they would be resistant to the possibility of efficient clean energy

KosmicKat
8th January 2012, 13:31
... Let's say the US tomorrow found a commercially viable, easily scaleable, rapidly roll-outable (is that a word?) free energy source, too cheap to meter. I would argue that that would be the most ecologically catastrophic thing in history. It would be used to drain the aquifers quicker, deplete other resources quicker, etc, etc, to further domination and imperialism and so on. In short, even if free energy were technically possible (which it isn't), we are not mature enough for such a thing. It is only resource scarcity that is forcing us to some level of awareness that we live on a finite planet. We've had, in effect, free energy for 150 years, and what we've done with it doesn't give the greatest degree of confidence that we would be good custodians for another one...


I suspect that the rationale presented here is the one first learned by anyone who begins to uncover the possibilities without learning any of the specifics. That they are encouraged to see their fellow-man as childishly immature and irresponsible, and to some extent, I have no doubt it is true. I know when I plug in an appliance, or start the engine I give very little thought to the ecological cost of my actions. But it is my belief that more and more people are beginning to do so. We may not be completely ready for more liberating technologies and I will discuss that aspect below, but perhaps the challenge of considering more carefully how we use resources would encourage us to think more carefully?

Assuming that we had more liberating technologies, i.e. free energy, generated at point of use; assuming that the utopian dream of science fiction writers of the nineteen-thirties and forties became a reality and we were able to automate most of the chores of daily living making far more free time how would we use that free time? would we engage in the arts and sciences? would we engage in philosophy or worship? or would we find other reasons to continue to fight among ourselves? would bored, or disenfranchised youth become a thing of the past? would the general character of humanity change for the better?

Muzz
8th January 2012, 13:33
III)
Brandon Adams Interview James Gilliland Nate ECETI 12/24/11


Thanks, excellent interview.

Dorjezigzag
8th January 2012, 13:45
... Let's say the US tomorrow found a commercially viable, easily scaleable, rapidly roll-outable (is that a word?) free energy source, too cheap to meter. I would argue that that would be the most ecologically catastrophic thing in history. It would be used to drain the aquifers quicker, deplete other resources quicker, etc, etc, to further domination and imperialism and so on. In short, even if free energy were technically possible (which it isn't), we are not mature enough for such a thing. It is only resource scarcity that is forcing us to some level of awareness that we live on a finite planet. We've had, in effect, free energy for 150 years, and what we've done with it doesn't give the greatest degree of confidence that we would be good custodians for another one...


I suspect that the rationale presented here is the one first learned by anyone who begins to uncover the possibilities without learning any of the specifics. That they are encouraged to see their fellow-man as childishly immature and irresponsible, and to some extent, I have no doubt it is true. I know when I plug in an appliance, or start the engine I give very little thought to the ecological cost of my actions. But it is my belief that more and more people are beginning to do so. We may not be completely ready for more liberating technologies and I will discuss that aspect below, but perhaps the challenge of considering more carefully how we use resources would encourage us to think more carefully?

Assuming that we had more liberating technologies, i.e. free energy, generated at point of use; assuming that the utopian dream of science fiction writers of the nineteen-thirties and forties became a reality and we were able to automate most of the chores of daily living making far more free time how would we use that free time? would we engage in the arts and sciences? would we engage in philosophy or worship? or would we find other reasons to continue to fight among ourselves? would bored, or disenfranchised youth become a thing of the past? would the general character of humanity change for the better?
How about using the clean energy created by that technology to engage in 'war' on poverty and pollution. Rather than using resourses to bomb and pollute use those resources to feed and clean.

Paa
8th January 2012, 13:49
-I've removed this post-

Bryn ap Gwilym
8th January 2012, 13:54
The so called green party are a splinter from the labour party which in turn are Unionists. Hence they can not be trusted.

I have been at logger heads with the so called green party for years & part of the big arguments where over the Tesla inventions. The party is far from being green. Their interests are to the Union & not to the planet & all who live on it.
This party has basically an unlimited resource of contacts that it uses to back up & support their devious agenda.

Dorjezigzag
8th January 2012, 14:04
Perhaps you should inform your friend about Andrea Rossi and his E-Cat (Energy Catalyzer), it's currently in development and will be released sometime in 2012. The first generation e-cats will produce hot steam, hot air and boiling water. Next generation will move on to electricity. There will be one small home unit, and one larger option for factories etc.

Some call this cold fusion, but Rossi prefer to call it LENR (Low Energy Nuclear Reactions). There is no radiation produced at all from what I understand, and is completely safe.

Official E-cat website:
http://ecat.com/

Andrea Rossi's blog/website:
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/ (he is very active in the comment area, thousands of responses etc)

The Swedish Magazine NyTeknik has been following Andrea Rossi closely:
http://www.nyteknik.se/taggar/?tag=Cold+Fusion (plenty of interesting articles)

Do I believe this is real and not a fraud? Yes, because:

The 1 MW E-Cat test was successful and ran in self-sustaining mode for 5 hours (October 28, 2011 in Bologna). It produced ~470KW/h due to overheating, which still is a fantastic result. Video 1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFiJb2UhzqY), Video 2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7sZHOQ6P-Rw)
It's been validated by Swedish Sceptics Society
University of Bologna (Italy) and University of Uppsala (Sweden) are involved in finding out how the process works, and to understand the nuclear physics behind it, since it's unknown territory at the moment.
Noble Prize Winning Cambridge Physicist talks about the invention, and about the media ignoring it: here (http://sms.cam.ac.uk/media/1150242)
Listen to what Professor Sergio Focardi has to say: here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2cOEHQmnG-I)
Professor Christos Stremmenos: here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7NuNNicWV6k)
Dr. Roland Pettersson: here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_9sONzr2Gbw)
Mats Lewan, for Swedish Magazine NyTeknik: here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JWoaJ5NEj-w)



I think this will go forward fairly rapidly now. [...] This is capable of, by itself, completely changing geo-economics, geopolitics of solving quite a bit of [the] energy [problem.] – Dennis Bushnell, Chief Scientist of NASA Langley

He recently partnered up with National Instruments to optimize the catalyzer, from what I can see in the comments section.

Everyone expected the 1 MW E-Cat Demonstration to fail, which it didn't - so some media had to report on it, even though most ignored to do so.

http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2011-10/29/rossi-success
http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2011-11/06/cold-fusion-heating-up


More curious is the lack of a story from Associated Press. AP science reporter Peter Svensson flew from New York to attend the demonstration, and live coverage of the event was curtailed to give AP the exclusive. But Svensson has so far not written a word about it. Some online commentators suggested that he had been silenced by "Chinese-style information censorship." When challenged, AP apparently initially tried to deny Svensson was there, though photographs suggest otherwise.

This led to a campaign encouraging people to contact Svensson about the story via his Twitter feed. At first he simply replied with variations of "Sorry, there's nothing I can tell you at this point", but later changed to "All I can say is 'stay tuned'".

The E-Cat will mean extremely cheap, de-centralized energy in every home. The energy output is so much greater than the input, that it could soon lead to basically free energy.

Wow, this looks really interesting.

Mad Hatter
8th January 2012, 14:38
As etm567 has already pointed out Tom Beardons investigation of Maxwells original equations is an excellent start. One hopes your friend has the neural ability to follow what is uncovered.
The one that always bites me...

First of all there are the laws of thermodynamics that you can't make something out of nothing, and perpetual motion is not possible.
Lets break that into two parts...

Is he seriously tryng to claim that the laws of thermal dynamics hold under all circumstances? Ask him what is meant by the very guarded expression "cross sectional anomoly" which turns up frequently in plasma physics papers in order to avoid using the term 'overunity' and thus avoid the risk of ones funding being cut...

Perpetual motion is not possible? Maybe but by the same token ask him to please point to the power source thats driven the universe for this length of time. Too hard? Scale it down to say an electron. Still too hard? Try a $2 fridge magnet...don't however settle for the current day bull**** argument taught that the magnet is doing no measurable 'work' thus requires no power source... get him to hang by his fingertips off the fridge for 10 minutes then tell him that according to physics as taught today his muscles have done no work....

Be extra happy with the fact that he has an intelligent mind that raised a bucket load of really good questions which means the capacity to comprehend is present and good luck in your search for the right argument to produce the 'gestahlt' moment to get him across the line.

aquamarine
8th January 2012, 14:58
hello peeps i've always been interested in electro magnetic generators, apparantly they are easy to build and is a source of free power/energy, i first saw this on THRIVE the movie, wondered if anyone else had attempted or have built one, would like to attempt one myself or my partner to build one blessed be aquamarine

Dorjezigzag
8th January 2012, 19:00
Thanks to everyone's help on this, I sent a long a lot of the info you gave me on this thread, the latest reply from him was 'thanks for your ongoing attempts to get me up to speed on upcoming technological developments'. So perhaps we are making some headway. Any more suggestions greatly apreciated

etm567
8th January 2012, 19:10
Is he seriously tryng to claim that the laws of thermal dynamics hold under all circumstances? Ask him what is meant by the very guarded expression "cross sectional anomoly" which turns up frequently in plasma physics papers in order to avoid using the term 'overunity' and thus avoid the risk of ones funding being cut...

Perpetual motion is not possible? Maybe but by the same token ask him to please point to the power source thats driven the universe for this length of time. Too hard? Scale it down to say an electron. Still too hard? Try a $2 fridge magnet...don't however settle for the current day bull**** argument taught that the magnet is doing no measurable 'work' thus requires no power source... get him to hang by his fingertips off the fridge for 10 minutes then tell him that according to physics as taught today his muscles have done no work....

Be extra happy with the fact that he has an intelligent mind that raised a bucket load of really good questions which means the capacity to comprehend is present and good luck in your search for the right argument to produce the 'gestahlt' moment to get him across the line.

What wonderful points you make! I shall happily put them in my arsenal -- the ones I can really understand -- and use them in my next argument with my husband.

seko
8th January 2012, 19:20
The so called green party are a splinter from the labour party which in turn are Unionists. Hence they can not be trusted.

I have been at logger heads with the so called green party for years & part of the big arguments where over the Tesla inventions. The party is far from being green. Their interests are to the Union & not to the planet & all who live on it.
This party has basically an unlimited resource of contacts that it uses to back up & support their devious agenda.

That is why we shouldn't waste our time with politicians they serve their agendas, not the public ones.

If we learn ourselves how to develop and use magnetic energy or Hydrogen or solar and share it with similar people like us, it will be the best start then the rest of people will follow.

Stop wasting your time with politicians.

etm567
8th January 2012, 19:24
hello peeps i've always been interested in electro magnetic generators, apparantly they are easy to build and is a source of free power/energy, i first saw this on THRIVE the movie, wondered if anyone else had attempted or have built one, would like to attempt one myself or my partner to build one blessed be aquamarine

I haven't watched Thrive, but the thing about magnets is kind of interesting. I think that's an idea that lots of children have, that you should be able to build something out of magnets that will keep going, if only you can line it up right. I know my daughter tried to do it with her magnetic toys. And I certainly thought about it.

By the way, does anyone remember...? A few years ago, there was a man, an inventor, who had a gizmo that produced hydrogen, I believe, through electrolysis, for power. It was a tall, clear, cylindrical thing, I think. And he was getting international patents, and stated that he thought that by getting international patents he was protecting himself from the "instant death ray" that seems to pursue inventors of free energy gadgets.

And then he died, of seemingly natural causes, but of course most of us don't believe that. I mean, if not the instant death ray, the instant heart attack drug, right?

I can't remember his name, and I can't find any trace of him now. There were lots of YouTube videos of him.

Does anyone remember him?

Many thanks,

ETM

markpierre
8th January 2012, 19:36
I apologize Dorjezigzag, if this is a friend of yours. He doesn't sound like anyone's friend.

I know what you mean but in many ways he is a caring guy, and actions he has been involved in the past suggest on certain issue he has had integrety. It just shows how the whole concept of this technology shakes peoples world view up. I never considered before that those coming from a green perpective would have such a blockage to this information. They seem to view it as an attack. You can see why with the fossil fuel and nuclear industry that there would be resistance but this really surprised me.

Ya, I'm just reading him in the words he chose. It's an example, not an indictment. It's just the ruthlessness of human mind when it feels confronted. His identity is defined by his sense of authority.
Strange how a 'Green' wouldn't be excited at the prospect that all the 'Green' problems could be resolved and could have been long ago.
But if they were, then who would he be? What would he be? That's a confronting prospect.

Dorjezigzag
8th January 2012, 19:43
The so called green party are a splinter from the labour party which in turn are Unionists. Hence they can not be trusted.

I have been at logger heads with the so called green party for years & part of the big arguments where over the Tesla inventions. The party is far from being green. Their interests are to the Union & not to the planet & all who live on it.
This party has basically an unlimited resource of contacts that it uses to back up & support their devious agenda.

That is why we shouldn't waste our time with politicians they serve their agendas, not the public ones.

If we learn ourselves how to develop and use magnetic energy or Hydrogen or solar and share it with similar people like us, it will be the best start then the rest of people will follow.

Stop wasting your time with politicians.
Seems I am making headway so I feel it was time well spent
To me firstly they are human beings,
Actually some are well intentioned they are just conditioned like many people in society. Whether we like it or not they do hold some power and influence and can have some effect on culture and society.

seko
8th January 2012, 22:41
The so called green party are a splinter from the labour party which in turn are Unionists. Hence they can not be trusted.

I have been at logger heads with the so called green party for years & part of the big arguments where over the Tesla inventions. The party is far from being green. Their interests are to the Union & not to the planet & all who live on it.
This party has basically an unlimited resource of contacts that it uses to back up & support their devious agenda.

That is why we shouldn't waste our time with politicians they serve their agendas, not the public ones.

If we learn ourselves how to develop and use magnetic energy or Hydrogen or solar and share it with similar people like us, it will be the best start then the rest of people will follow.

Stop wasting your time with politicians.
Seems I am making headway so I feel it was time well spent
To me firstly they are human beings,
Actually some are well intentioned they are just conditioned like many people in society. Whether we like it or not they do hold some power and influence and can have some effect on culture and society.

Some of them are well intentioned and your intentions are good and I thank you for that. But there is no point if they bring a motion to the table to help the ordinary people when you know who is controlling parliament or the senate and have no intentions to help, but to obey their masters.

Is better to learn and share your knowledge than to wait for the politicians to help you out.

ceetee9
8th January 2012, 23:17
Great thread and topic “Dorjezigzag!” Thank you for posting it.

My first reaction was, wow, how could a high ranking member of a party that claims one of its primary charters is to raise awareness for, and help bring about, global “ecological wisdom” not know who Tesla was or anything about advanced energy technologies. Most of today’s conventional energy technologies are, arguably, our biggest planetary polluters and usurpers of our finite resources. Even solar and wind technologies require massive amounts of real estate and other resources to build the devices to convert the energy.

But, I will provide my comments in regard to some of the “green guy’s” statements below.

The story usually goes like this. Hardworking scientist discovers new form of free energy machine and tells someone of the amazing device he has come up with. Next day the FBI arrive and seize the lot and take it all away and threaten him not to say anything. If only the FBI hadn't of confiscated it all, we'd have free energy. Yes, or perhaps more likely it was nonsense, and there were other reasons the FBI showed up?I wonder if he’d care to share with us his reasoning on why the FBI might have chosen that particular time to confiscate the scientist’s work if it was all nonsense or some “other reason?” Oh, I know, the scientist was suspected of being a “terrorist” and the FBI thought it was a bomb he was making.

The other story is the "the oil companies buy up all the patents and hide them". By this stage, it is far far far more likely that these things don't work, can't work, will never work, and that this is all a fantasy.Obviously all the documented cases of companies who purchased patents from inventors and did nothing with them did so because they like throwing their money away for inventions that “don’t work, can’t work and will never work.” Yes, that seems reasonable to me to make such a logical and “scientifically” verifiable statement. Oops, that’s right, no need for scientific verification because the all knowing “scientists” won’t “waste” their time on such nonsense—especially when it takes no intelligence, talent or work to just issue an edict that it can’t be true so therefore it isn’t. No scientific investigation necessary—and it does threaten credibility, tenure and/or funding for all the “acceptable” projects.

But imagine, if you were a scientist that could prove free energy? You'd win the Nobel prize. You'd have rewritten the laws of physics. I don't believe that scientists would come up with something that might win them a Nobel prize and then sell the patent to Exxon.I’d be willing to bet that most would when they were given a choice to either sell out and back off, or have their reputation, career, and/or life (or the life of loved ones) destroyed. It is only a very few rare individuals who will put their principles and the betterment of humanity before their own self interest and preservation. And, unfortunately, most of those individuals have suffered the consequences, including death. But, no doubt, those in denial will have no problem believing that those who lost their lives was just coincidental to their actions of attempting to bring forth an energy technology that is truly green, non-polluting and virtually unlimited for the betterment of all mankind.

There's a guy in Australia who has invented a car that runs on water!" I had to tell him that with parts of Oz experiencing dreadful desertification and not having seen rain for years, that that struck me as the most enormously socially and ecologically irresponsible invention I had ever heard of, far worse than petrol.Perhaps “Mr. Green” was unaware that Australia is an island. Or, maybe he just couldn’t grasp the concept of transporting water from a location with abundant water (like the ocean) to a place where there is no water (like a desert). Admittedly, desalination and transportation would add to the cost and deriving energy from water may not be the best solution for that location, but, come on, “the most enormously socially and ecologically irresponsible invention” he ever heard? Oh, yeah, that’s right. He never heard of Tesla or Cold Fusion either. I guess those “Green” folk live very sheltered lives. ;)

One claim I often hear is that this is all viciously suppressed and that scientists and inventors are afraid to publish on it for fear of reprisals. These days I reply that I am personally very concerned about the energy crisis, and that if anyone supplies me with the requisite evidence I will happily risk life and limb and write up the disproof of the laws of thermodynamics for any scientific journal. Sadly, my bluff is yet to be called, and I have not yet had my chance to be the new Einstein This statement seems a bit disingenuous to me since the guy claims to be “green” and cares about the “energy crisis,” yet he appears to have done little to no investigation into alternative energy technologies, has been given opportunities to seriously investigate advanced energy technologies that he prefers to dismiss out of hand, and then he claims he would “happily risk life and limb and write up the disproof of the laws of thermodynamics for any scientific journal” (apparently he is a scientist as well) all of which makes me question his knowledge, motives and integrity even more. If he is a scientist as well as a UK Green party head, he might want to get caught up on the latest in quantum mechanics and the zero point field since he seems to think that Newtonian physics is all there is. And judging from most of his statements, I don’t think he has anything to worry about in regard to becoming the “new Einstein.”

And Alexis, if you do decide to look into this further and have any more specific questions, I'd be happy to talk them over, but I don't recommend wasting your timeThat pretty much sums iup for me where this guy’s head is at. He’s already decided it’s a waste of time so, I have to agree, Alexis, there really is no need for further discussion with this guy. He has a closed mind.

Also, bear in mind that as Rob hinted, even if there were the possibility of some kind 'free energy machine', it would still need to fulfil a whole host of other criteria before being the miracle energy source that stops us having to concern ourselves with 'peak energy'.Now we’re getting some where. Unfortunately though, many of the criteria that “Rob” claims needs to be met as a precursor to serious investigation into alternative energy sources are ignored by the conventional energy proponents. I guess when it’s your project that is being funded by the government or an industry that’s agenda is to continue their multi-trillion dollar a year money machine, we can overlook those pesky criteria. For instance, our institutional scientists have been working on harnessing hot fusion for over five decades, have spent tens of billions of dollars (probably closer to hundreds of billions) on research and who knows what the real pollution and safety issues are should this become a viable technology, yet we still don’t have this energy technology available. Let’s see how many of the necessary criteria this technology has met:

Reserves (infinite? limited? infinitely renewing up to a certain rate of consumption?) – probably unlimited
Flow rates (how much energy can be released per hour/day/year? – Not much so far
Can it be scaled up? – Probably
How long does it take to scale up? – They’ve been at it for over 50 years and we don’t have viable model yet, much less do we know how long it will take to scale up.
How easy is it to do so?) – Apparently, not easy at all.
Energy Return on Energy Invested – pitiful ROI to date
Usefulness of energy product, e.g. heat, electricity... (energy density, transportability, supply/demand management, ease of storage...) – Useful it successful, management and storage very difficult
'Waste' products (are these useful feedstocks for other processes? Does managing them itself consume energy?) – Doubtful there are any useful waste products and highly likely they will consume much energy
Environmental impacts (local impacts, global impacts...) – Highly likely to have a negative impact on the environment
Location of energy resource (relative to location of demand) – Very poor and, at this point, will still require transmission lines to get energy to consumers
Infrastructure required (does it already exist? how long will it take to bring online? Is the infrastructure resilient/complex?) – Bigtime infrastructure required. Anyone’s guess as to how long it will take, Extremely complex
Technically mature and understood (proven track record, problems well understood, experienced staff available, ease of maintenance, durability, ease of replicability) – Not at all mature and apparently not well understood as evidenced by the fact we still don’t have a viable solution with this technology
Resilience (resilient to different possible futures, does it require stable temperatures, sea levels, human civilisation etc, could the technology be understood and operated by unqualified staff/uninitiated future generations) – Requires very controlled environment to work and technology is very advanced and not likely to be understood or operated by unqualified/uninitiated future staff/generations
Financial cost and finance availability – Ridiculously expensive already, but money appears to be no object as long as the taxpayers are willing to pay the bill
Psychological behavioural factors (does the energy source encourage/support other desirable/undesirable behaviours, or shift our cultural approach/narrative?) – It requires support from those earning their living by the research and development of the technology. It requires buy in from, or more likely, pay off to, uninformed and/or unscrupulous politicians to continue its funding
Political and security issues* Macro-economic implications – It’s nuclear, need I say more?

Isn’t it interesting that projects like hot fusion can receive tens of billions of dollars and go on for decades, but that’s not a waste of time or money, but spending even a few million dollars to investigate some of the works of NikolaTesla, T. Thomas Brown, Tom Bearden, Bruce DePalma, Bernard Haisch, Philip Kanarev, Robert Koontz, Paul LaViolette, Eugene Mallove, Michael McKubre, Randell Mills, T. Henry Moray, Yoshiro Nakamatsu, Fabrizio Pinto, Eugene Podkletnov, Stanley Pons, Ronald Stiffler, Claus Turtur, Thomas Valone and many, many other distinguished scientists and inventors is considered just a waste of time. Yes, it’s pretty clear to me that all these noble people have their head up their butt and, literally, risked life, limb, career and reputation on nonsense. But I’ll leave it to the discerning reader to decide for themselves whether all these people are cooks and con men and it is only the scientists and inventors acknowledged by mainstream science, media and government who are the real deal and have nothing to gain—other than their income, career, reputation, and life—by maintaining the status quo.

brenie
8th January 2012, 23:28
Hi Dorjezigzag and friends. I wrote my MP in March last year, I was enquiring if our Government would be requesting an invite to Andrea Rossi's Oct: 28th demonstration. Namely his e-cat heat generator which has shown some good results over the last two year.
MP contacts his Energy Minister, he contacts his minion Charles Hendry, who replies in May.
Bla,bla, bla, etc: "However industry has not indicated that they would be looking to deploy them(e-cats) in the UK, ultimately it is for industry to decide what type of technology or fuel to use"
These folk speak for their dept: Energy and climate change, the same folk that just signed a new contract for more 'nuke plants' !
Which industry do you think they ask for advice on any new source of energy, yes, and of course the nuke-mob are going to give a strait answer!!
Another gem from his reply, "both industry and a majority of the scientific community view the claims of the University of Bologna with some significant scepticism"
These are trained reactionaries who turned on Pons and Flieshman, 30 year ago to condemn anyone who should suggest "we have cold fusion" at that time they knew without doubt 'cold fusion' could not exist. Why, well it would defy the laws of thermodynamics.
Well I should ask them to now research e-cat, Andrea Rossi has out smarted them by refusing to play their game, while they protest he has not allowed them to 'peer review' he says 'here it is it works if you would like, place your order and review it as long as you like'.
We all know what happens with peer reviews, they last forever.
So, my call to everyone is have a look at e-cat, If you have'nt already, google it.

Regards, Brenie.

Mad Hatter
9th January 2012, 06:56
Hi Brenie and welcome to Avalon!! So nice to have yet another on board that refuses to accept mushroom status and is prepared to be proactive in exposing the truth...:nod:

Referee
9th January 2012, 07:52
:spy::spy::spy::spy:Look I am not a rocket scientist but hello Magnetics it is as simple as that. Unless I am wrong to opposite charges repell each other you just need big enough magnets.

PS where do I sign up for the war for free energy :spy:

modwiz
9th January 2012, 08:32
I want free energy, yesterday. It has been with us for a few decades now,but it is bad for energy suppliers. It has been a threat since Tesla conceived of it and JP Morgan saw it for the threat to profit and exploitation it was and is. I just feel the word 'fight' is not productive.

Wade Frazier has a brilliant thread here and Ilie has started a thread or two that serve to broaden the discussion. I hope Ilie will jump in here at some point and provide a link to his threads. Here is the one to Wade's:http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?10672-WADE-FRAZIER-A-Healed-Planet&p=396249&viewfull=1#post396249

There is a consciousness that goes with FE and we are a little short of it. Even if it got released tomorrow there could be some downsides to it. Not all psychopaths are in government. Sociopathic behavior is taught in almost every part of our culture. That said, like firearms I will take my chances and pay whatever the price of freedom is. Still, Wade makes excellent points and sense in his approach. His thread is where an energy to precipitate this boon to humanity is being discussed in earnest and in reasoned ideas.

That will be my input for this thread.

onawah
9th January 2012, 08:38
What I want to know is, are there going to be ECats for sale at Home Depot in year or so for about $1000 or $1500 each.
Now, that would be something!
y5Gl2UMaWNI

Dorjezigzag
9th January 2012, 12:42
I want free energy, yesterday. It has been with us for a few decades now,but it is bad for energy suppliers. It has been a threat since Tesla conceived of it and JP Morgan saw it for the threat to profit and exploitation it was and is. I just feel the word 'fight' is not productive.

Wade Frazier has a brilliant thread here and Ilie has started a thread or two that serve to broaden the discussion. I hope Ilie will jump in here at some point and provide a link to his threads. Here is the one to Wade's:http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?10672-WADE-FRAZIER-A-Healed-Planet&p=396249&viewfull=1#post396249

There is a consciousness that goes with FE and we are a little short of it. Even if it got released tomorrow there could be some downsides to it. Not all psychopaths are in government. Sociopathic behavior is taught in almost every part of our culture. That said, like firearms I will take my chances and pay whatever the price of freedom is. Still, Wade makes excellent points and sense in his approach. His thread is where an energy to precipitate this boon to humanity is being discussed in earnest and in reasoned ideas.

That will be my input for this thread.

I just feel the word 'fight' is not productive.

I totally see where you are coming from and I did think about my use of that word.
But I decided to use the word because in a spiritual context the pursuit of truth is often referred to as a fight and a war, it does not necessarily mean it involves violence just great will, resilience and intention.

In Buddhism an essentially non-violent religion( although there is debate on what non-violence actually means) images often portray the bodhisattvas, Buddha’s etc holding a sword. This is not a sword to kill all opponents it is a sword to cut through illusion. If you look at the definition of the word fight it has several meanings and it does not necessarily infer violence
fight
v. fought (fôt), fight•ing, fights
v.intr.
1.
a. To attempt to harm or gain power over an adversary by blows or with weapons.
b. Sports To engage in boxing or wrestling.
2. To engage in a quarrel; argue: They are always fighting about money.
3. To strive vigorously and resolutely: fought against graft; fighting for her rights

On the definitions above I think definition 1 is out of the question but if you have seen me and my neighbour at it we are definitely engaged in definition 2 an argument a quarrel. I have posted some of the evidence of it. Also definition 3 applies as well
All I am saying this change is not going to come easy and we are going to have to stand our ground be prepared to fight and argue with the intention of compassion not hate.

STATIC
9th January 2012, 17:01
Let's say the US tomorrow found a commercially viable, easily scaleable, rapidly roll-outable (is that a word?) free energy source, too cheap to meter. I would argue that that would be the most ecologically catastrophic thing in history. It would be used to drain the aquifers quicker, deplete other resources quicker, etc, etc, to further domination and imperialism and so on

All I can say about this idea is bollocks.

I would point to this thread to counter this statement. http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?29372-What-technologies-activities-or-concepts-will-be-made-obsolete-by-Free-Energy

Even a child would be able to make positive decisions if given the task of implementing Free energy for the planet. It's probable that the child would make better decisions than an Adult that is fully entrenched in the old paradigm. The problem is that the psychopaths of this planet are making the decisions on how technologies are implemented, or if they are implemented at all.

Dorjezigzag
10th January 2012, 19:03
As you may have realised my initial discussion was with one individual, who then passed on the debate to further individuals. No permission was asked, which did not concern me but it meant I did not have to feel concerned about posting this for the feedback of the experts on Avalon.

I feel some head way is being made with the original individual but another individual (Rob) probably the most prominent figure attacking the 'free' energy movement in my posts has made a recent review of the movie thrive. I have my issues with this film, but when successful it does give a brief intro to certain issues facing us today. I have stated in my reply, if he feels he now knows the whole free energy movement by watching Thrive he does not.

This is his review.


What do you do when you are the heir to the Proctor and Gamble fortune and you
have spent years surrounding yourself with new agey thinking and conspiracy
theories? You make a film like 'Thrive', the latest conspiracy theory movie
that is popping up all over the place. I've lost count of the number of people
who have asked me "have you seen 'Thrive'?" Well I have now, and, to be frank,
it's dangerous tosh which deserves little other than our derision. It is also
a very useful opportunity to look at a worldview which, according to Georgia
Kelly writing at Huffington Post, masks "a reactionary, libertarian political
agenda that stands in jarring contrast with the soothing tone of the
presentation".

To me his whole argument is based on Orwellian ignorance and the technique of humiliating stereo types rather than actually engaging in the issues. Apparently he sometimes does talks in London, I am going to try and attend one because this guy needs to wake up and smell the coffee. I will post the time and place when this happens.

Dennis Leahy
10th January 2012, 21:32
My answers to your friend:


... You'd have rewritten the laws of physics. No. That is an attempt to mock or dismiss these efforts as scientifically impossible. No one is going to rewrite the laws of physics. However, with continued experimentation, some new understandings of physics are certain, right?

Or, does this person really believe physics understanding is static, that the knowledge base of physics is complete? If yes, then all physicists should immediately be dismissed from their jobs. Nothing more to learn - simply look it up in the leather-bound book containing the permanent and utterly complete science of physics, right? Right?



I don't believe that scientists would come up with something that might win them a Nobel prize and then sell the patent to Exxon.Interesting that the word "patent' was introduced into the conversation. If a scientist attempt to get a patent in the US, there is a group of people including the Department of Energy that gets to give the "go ahead" to patents, or to slap a "Secrecy Order" on the patent application that includes a "gag order" on the scientist. It has been invoked over 5000 times, so far.

Just because someone is a brilliant scientist does not mean they are savvy in the "ways of the world." To suggest that Big Energy companies do not buy up patents that would diminish their cash flow is ludicrous. Do they send thugs to threaten or even kill scientists that will not comply with a request to buy-out a patent... oh, let's not go there. To go there we would have to see at least a percentage of multinational corporations as having at least a percentage of unscrupulous and illegal behavior - and we all know that cannot possibly be true. Or do we? Do we know that some corporations conspire and manipulate? (For a gentle nudge towards reality, watch, "The Lightbulb Conspiracy.")



I think I mentioned in the Handbook the guy I met at a talk once who came up and enthusiastically said "have you heard? There's a guy in Australia who has invented a car that runs on water!" I had to tell him that with parts of Oz experiencing dreadful desertification and not having seen rain for years, that that struck me as the most enormously socially and ecologically irresponsible invention I had ever heard of, far worse than petrol. He rather quietly slipped back into the crowd never to reappear....Are you so blinded by the short-sighted, inside-the-box view that you would not realize that free/cheap energy would mean sea water desalination would become economically feasible, that the energy cost is the greatest deterrent to sea water desalination? And with water desalination, fresh water could be piped all over Australia - supplying not only the fuel for vehicles running on water, but for irrigating? Does the public really pay you to represent them, to look after their best interests? Amazing.



write up the disproof of the laws of thermodynamics for any scientific journal. Sadly, my bluff is yet to be called, and I have not yet had my chance to be the new Einstein...False assumption that free energy means the laws of thermodynamics are wrong. Spend 5 minutes reading the scientific literature - get a primary school kid to help explain the concepts to you if necessary - that the source of the energy is as real as the radiation coming from the sun - it just happens to be at the atomic/sub-atomic level. Energy cannot be created - but if you know how to tap into existing energy, you can extract energy.



PHYSICAL CRITERIA ... could the technology be understood and operated by unqualified staff/uninitiated future generations)hahahahahahaha no, future civilizations will marvel at our knowledge, and will poke the free energy generators with sharpened sticks.


NON-PHYSICAL CRITERIA* Financial cost and finance availability* Psychological behavioural factors (does the energy source encourage/support other desirable/undesirable behaviours, or shift our cultural approach/narrative?)* Political and security issues* Now we're getting somewhere. Fear. Fear of the unknown. Oil companies and pollution and war for resources are all known; free energy is the unknown. Political issues? You bet your arse! It certainly changes the geopolitical climate quite a bit - the whips and chains of the bully States are taken away. Shift our cultural narrative? Did you really write those words down? Please tell me you are not so arrogant as to believe that the current cultural narrative is the epitome of development, or that the exploitation of humans and the planetary ecosystem that we are participating in right now with fossil fuels is a narrative deserving protection. Please.



Macro-economic implications
Macro-economic implications
Macro-economic implicationsFinally, the truth emerges. What happens to humanity if humanity no longer needs to spend our waking hours working for energy? What happens to the oil barons? The nuclear industrialists? The war-mongers selling further wars to keep pumping out the goods for the military industrial complex? What would happen to civilization if we have to learn to cope with a reality devoid of the Big Energy cabal and their agenda? Ooooohhhhh the great unknown again!



Rob wrote: Personally speaking I don’t buy it. First of all there are the laws of thermodynamics that you can't make something out of nothing, and perpetual motion is not possible. Period. ...I'm beginning to think that you can't tell the truth to someone who wants to believe lies. Period.

Who EVER said free energy has anything to do with "mak[ing] something out of nothing" and "perpetual motion?" Why not mention that free energy can not work because it presupposes the preformation homunculus theory is true? Free energy is free because there is no pricetag on the source of the energy, not because it "comes out of nothing." There is a source of the energy in so-called "free-energy" and it is atomic or subatomic, pervasive, and fills what has been thought of as "empty space."

"Perpetual motion" is a debunker's pejorative catchphrase, a slap in the face that attempts to humiliate people into turning away from pursuing free energy. No one, and I mean NO ONE, is suggesting that free energy devices are "perpetual motion machines" - that is, a machine that a finite amount of energy can be input and the machine runs infinitely. Zero Point Energy (ZPE) free energy machines CONSTANTLY draw from the abundant energy within "empty space." Other free energy devices CONSTANTLY draw energy from magnetic forces, or use heat differentials. Sorry, you cannot make us slink away with pejorative phrases any more.


... free energy source, too cheap to meter. I would argue that that would be the most ecologically catastrophic thing in history.
...
It is only resource scarcity that is forcing us to some level of awareness that we live on a finite planet. We've had, in effect, free energy for 150 years, and what we've done with it doesn't give the greatest degree of confidence that we would be good custodians for another one...Wow. We are too stupid to run society, and we need the oil barons to do it for us. Very, very sad to see such condescending pablum spewed. Well, I guess the great grandchildren of the oil barons can - in their infinite wisdom and grace - figure out how to transition our great grandchildren to the next metered source of energy when oil runs out. Thank the gods for the oil barons! Long live the oil barons!

(Sorry, I got downright snarky.)

Dennis

TargeT
11th January 2012, 00:48
Hmm, I was just discussing this over the weekend; show your friend this:
http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y64/zTargeTz/54eadebf.jpg


Dunno why I wrote "phlanks" instead of planks

s3nru
11th January 2012, 01:03
it's a little bit old but it's relevant.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/7954244/The-Manual-of-Free-Energy-Devices-and-Systems-1991

Paa
13th January 2012, 20:51
-I've removed this post-

onawah
13th January 2012, 21:00
Dr. Steven Greer and Ted Loder comment on the e-cat in their current talk on World Puja Network
EqukTBecsRM

TargeT
13th January 2012, 22:38
Dr. Steven Greer and Ted Loder comment on the e-cat in their current talk on World Puja Network
EqukTBecsRM


sad that "smart people" like Dr Greer can bitch about this tech being pulled via national security and going ON AND ON about how this isn't a national security issue.....

another smart idiot... they ARE a matter of national security when you realise the "securtity" is secured income sources, not safety or anything that benifits non-corporate entities.

he also basicaly says the E-cat is probably a hoax... and yet he's all about talking on people who have been snatched up by "jack booted thugs"

how is it not obvious that the our empire is ran by leveraging the second most prevalant liquid on earth as a scarce product (when its not, and never will be) & anything that challanges that manipulation IS a "national security" issue.