The fight for 'Free Energy'

[seko]

Posted by Bryn ap Gwilym (here)
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]

Posted by aquamarine (here)
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]

Posted by Dorjezigzag (here)

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]

Posted by seko (here)

Posted by Bryn ap Gwilym (here)
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]

Posted by Dorjezigzag (here)

Posted by seko (here)

Posted by Bryn ap Gwilym (here)
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]

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 time

That 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]

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]

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...

[Referee]

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

[modwiz]

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:https://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...l=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]

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!

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=y5Gl2UMaWNI

[Dorjezigzag]

Posted by modwiz (here)
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:https://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...l=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]

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. https://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...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]

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]

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 implications

Finally, 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]

Hmm, I was just discussing this over the weekend; show your friend this:



Dunno why I wrote "phlanks" instead of planks

[s3nru]

it's a little bit old but it's relevant.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/7954244/Th...d-Systems-1991

[Paa]

-I've removed this post-

[onawah]

Dr. Steven Greer and Ted Loder comment on the e-cat in their current talk on World Puja Network

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=EqukTBecsRM

[TargeT]

Posted by onawah (here)
Dr. Steven Greer and Ted Loder comment on the e-cat in their current talk on World Puja Network

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=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.