It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Suppressed technologies

page: 1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in


posted on Mar, 8 2005 @ 01:11 PM
I still, from time to time, look for alternative and free energy. There is much evidence of suppressing inventions that can reduce dangers to our planet or create/conserve energy.

I have come across a couple of sites that I'd like to share with my favorite forum.

First, a very extensive writing from a man who almost made history, but corporate greed stood in the way. Amoung the best writings I've read in a while:

Second, some pretty nice experiments and project with real photographs. Some of the items found here I am going to try.

Many might say that free energy is not possible. I'm sorry, but I think there is something that works. I just hope I can find one that 1) works and can be built by anyone, and 2) won't get me killed.

Many might doubt that these are really happening, but why have we not seen the 200 MPG carburetor on our vehicles still to this day?

posted on Mar, 9 2005 @ 11:34 AM
Wow, no responses. I've read many times that one of the reasons we don't have any of the above items is because nobody cares. Seems it is true.

Other inventions include a way to get rid of nuclear waste, but since it won't make money, it is not done.

Ways to heat your home for little cash, not in stores.

Many things have been supressed and no one cares. Many patents that could heal our world that we don't see because of lower profits. Our world is being destroyed for your children and no one cares.

posted on Mar, 9 2005 @ 11:50 AM
The links are very interesting it will take time to check them out.

About your thread you are right energy alternatives has been put on hold because the gas, energy and oil empire is to profitable for the few to find solutions to the problems with energy.

For many years people always has tried to find solutions after all we as humans love to experiment, but the greedy groups involved in this type of science will not want anybody to find something that will not only help the environment but our wallets also.

Only when they can control it and make us pay for it then they will allowed better and more advance alternative technology to help the world.

If it does not make money for them they don't want it and they will do anything to stop it.

posted on Mar, 9 2005 @ 01:12 PM
Godservant says:

"I still, from time to time, look for alternative and free energy. There is much evidence of suppressing inventions that can reduce dangers to our planet or create/conserve energy."

I haven't seen any evidence of suppressing technology; indeed, I have first-hand experience of how the oil companies do their best to nuture it (although for their own benefit, of course)

In the late '80s, when I was working for Motorola, I applied for and got a job working for the Systems Engineering Group at Solavolt International, a photovoltaics (PV) engineering and manufacturing house in Phoenix. Solavolt was a joint venture between Motorola (which had the electronics process engineers) and Shell Oil (which had deep pockets).

Shell didn't know if PV were to be a viable energy source or not, but it knew that it wanted to be in the energy business in the 21st century regardless of how they made energy, so they sunk a boatload of money into Solavolt. If you're familiar with alternate energy, you'll probably remember that two other big players in the PV market back then were Mobil Solar and Arco Solar.

Again, the same reason -- the oil companies knew they couldn't surpress a new technology, so they tried to deal themselves in!

Now as it turned out, the PV boom of the '70s and '80's was based on three bogus facts:

(1) PV production cost per watt was high, but with the breakthroughs we knew were coming, would soon below $1/watt.

(2) Gas prices were low now (1985) but by 1990 or 1995, they'd be at $3-4/gallon.

(3) the Federal tax credits generated by PURPA would last forever

Well, the cost of PV didn't go down, the price of gas didn't didn't rise that fast, and the tax credits went away. As a result, the energy companies realized that PV was throwing good money after bad, and they all pulled out, taking a big loss, but cutting a bigger one. It was a sound business decision on their part.

And PV, although I love the technology dearly, is still a cost effective solution for large-scale generation of electricity.

But my point is that the oil companies simply don't have the power you might think they do. Brazil, China, Japan, and India have to import almost all their oil, and they all have brilliant scientists, engineers, and technologists. You don't think that, if there really were an alternative to the hydrocarbon economy, one of those countries wouldn't have developed a cost-effective replacement by now?

"First, a very extensive writing from a man who almost made history, but corporate greed stood in the way. Amoung the best writings I've read in a while: First, a very extensive writing from a man who almost made history, but corporate greed stood in the way. Amoung the best writings I've read in a while:"

I read the site and didn't see any evidence for workable alternative energy at all. Would you care to point us to a particular technology?

"Second, some pretty nice experiments and project with real photographs. Some of the items found here I am going to try."

I didn't see anything there that was a workable and cost-effective alternative energy source. The very first page, the author bemoans the fact that he doesn't have enough money to do any sort of research and development; but if his designs or concepts are workable and cost-effective, why aren't all the Third World and non-oil-producing countries jumping on the bandwagon?

"Many might say that free energy is not possible. I'm sorry, but I think there is something that works. I just hope I can find one that 1) works and can be built by anyone..."

Maybe there is something that works, but I haven't seen any evidence for it, and neither has anyone else I've spoken with.

"...and 2) won't get me killed."

It probably won't get you killed unless you short out a high-current circuit.

"Many might doubt that these are really happening, but why have we not seen the 200 MPG carburetor on our vehicles still to this day?"

Because it doesn't exist, and never did. Besides, we don't use carburetors any more; the latest thing is computer-controlled common-rail diesel fuel injection, coupled with NiMH batteries and electric motors.

Godservant, I certainly share your frustration with the state of energy technology today. We are poisoning ourselves -- and quite possibly the Earth itself -- by burning hydrocarbons, and the money that we pay those thugs for oil is funnelled to the hands of islamofacist terrorists and other thugs, which drives up our defense costs, and ruins our economy and standing in the world.
And we should be looking at all possible sources of alternatives to burning hydrocarbons, whether it's nuclear power, PV, hydro, wind turbines, tidal bore turbines, or even stirling-cycle engines working off the temperature delta in the ocean.

Just as importantly, we should be embarking on a Manhattan- Projet-scale effort to conserve our existing stocke and maximize the effectiveness of domestic oil production.

But looking for conspiracies where none exist, and talking about energy sources for which there is no evidence, is detracting us from the very real task of developing and sustaining a common-sense energy strategy for the future of our planet.

posted on Mar, 9 2005 @ 04:00 PM
im with you man! why are we being prevented from advance, the answer is greed!

posted on Mar, 9 2005 @ 05:17 PM
Being one of those evil geologist employed by the corrupt power suppressing oil & gas companies I think I'm gonna have to give off-the street a thumbs up for his post.
Right now I'm drilling an exploratory natural gas well in Northern B.C. and it looks like they just wasted another couple of million dollars.

posted on Mar, 10 2005 @ 11:36 AM
freemindsofman says:

"im with you man! why are we being prevented from advance, the answer is greed!"

I don't think we're being "prevented" from anything by greed; rather, it's the fact that we do not have any sort of rational energy policy.

If you look at the cost of gasoline and factor inflation into it, you'll see that 2005 gas prices are one of the best bargains around. The inflation-adjusted gasoline we buy today is cheaper than it was at just about any time in the past.

And it's that addiction to cheap gasoline, aided by the in-place infrastructure, which is responsible for our continued addiction to it and the OPEC thugs who deal it.

That and the irrational fear most Americans have about nuclear power and our collective inability to perform simple health- , economic-, and cost-effectiviteness evaluation on all kinds of energy supplies.

posted on Mar, 10 2005 @ 11:38 AM
Battle of Batoche says:

"Being one of those evil geologist employed by the corrupt power suppressing oil & gas companies I think I'm gonna have to give off-the street a thumbs up for his post"

It's gneiss to know I have someone in my corner -- one who shares my sediments, realizes that, on some things, I actually have my schist together, and doesn't take my posts for granite.


posted on Mar, 10 2005 @ 12:55 PM
Very well said Off_the_street. I like the way you talk to others without degrading. You may be right that nothing truly exists, but I still have my doubts. I haven't seen a working model either, but there are some small evidences that something is exists somewhere.

What about Tesla's final experiment - the tower?

There must be something. What is powering the silent UFO's that are being seen all over the world?

BTW, I never said anything about evil geologists. Where did that come from?

posted on Mar, 10 2005 @ 01:42 PM
godservant says:

"What about Tesla's final experiment - the tower?"

I agree that Tesla was a great engineer who did brilliant work but, like other geniuses (Shockley and Teller come to mind), went .. .well, "mad" might be too strong; let's just say "increasingly eccentric".

Think about his inventions, though.

He's been dead for ... what? 60 years? If his stuff ever existed and his papers were even the least bit coherent, why hasn't anyone managed to duplicate all the things he claimed that he had done?

And don't say because the government or anyone else suppressed his stuff; they certainly didn't suppress trasnsistors, lasers, computers, LSI and a whole bunch of other technologies equally important and unsettling on the world economy.

If Tesla really had developed that stuff and the govenrment's got it, then why do we continue to lose (or at best, tie) wars?

"There must be something. What is powering the silent UFO's that are being seen all over the world?"

I haven't a clue. To be honest, I've never seen any evidence for these UFOs; if I saw some evidence for them, and they were indeed silent, then I would start thinking about their propulsion mechanism.

Look at it like this: If there are UFOs (and I'm not sure there are) why do you say they are powered by any kind fo earth invention at all? And if it's an earth-person invention, why do you automatically ascribe it to Tesla?

"BTW, I never said anything about evil geologists. Where did that come from?"

I think Mr. Batouche is just poking a little fun at his own profession.

[edit on 10-3-2005 by Off_The_Street]

posted on Feb, 5 2006 @ 12:15 PM
This thread was one of many I have seen over the years that became part of the grist for this essay:

As Adam Trombly noted:

Inventors, engineers and scientists who have never done anything noteworthy in the alternative energy field regularly say, after hearing tales of suppression, that nobody ever tried to suppress their work. The Big Boys do not try to suppress technology that is not worth suppressing.

I know some of Adam’s adventures in alternative energy from the inside, and he survived several murder attempts before he bowed out. Anybody who has done anything worthwhile in the field unfortunately nods knowingly when reading this little vignette:

Everybody I know and know of who has tried mounting anything worthwhile in the free energy field has encountered agents of the Big Boys. Most take the money, but some had untimely demises while the others have survived murder attempts and other outrages. Some are behind bars even today. But the denial, apathy and inertia of the masses have always been the biggest obstacles to overcome.

My experiences over the past twenty years has shown me that the vast majority of engineers and technical professionals are quite naïve about the political-economic reality of potentially “disruptive” technologies. If an inventor actually gets something worthwhile going and comes onto the Big Boys’ radar, then he (I have not encountered a woman yet on that inventive frontier) often becomes “paranoid.” That is an understandable reaction (and often accurate, as far as what they are facing), but engineering and inventor types are more susceptible to Paranoid Personality Disorder than most people, and their paranoia helps their effort self-destruct.

When I hear engineers and scientists say they have never seen or heard of suppression of alternative energy, I usually discover that they live in comfy berths at energy or military-related companies, doing mundane work (nothing that comes remotely close to challenging the paradigm that earns them their paychecks). Less than 1% of all engineers and scientists have the creativity and discrimination to assess paradigm-busting data/innovations, and even then, most of that 1% will get trapped in their conditioning regarding the political-economic system. That is not exactly something new; it has always been that way.

People will rarely see the real world of alternative energy while living the nine-to-five life in the corporate world. Here is an example of somebody getting a glimpse of how it really works:

Accounting clerks and engineers at the BPA never knew that somebody like Bill the Hit Man was also on their organization’s payroll:

There is actually a thirty-year-old interview of Bill on the Internet today, so people can see how he developed his fake alternative energy credentials (I will not give the link to it here, but it can be easily found with a Google search – it can be hazardous to one’s health to publicly name those kinds of people…kind of like naming a Gambino family hit man)

As far the observation that there were no viable technologies presented on my site, my response is this:

This is the first post to an Internet forum that I have made for years, and if the discussion can rise above facile dismissals and other deficiencies, I may continue to participate in it. I would think a site like Above Top Secret would attract people who want to help solve the immense problems that humanity faces today (as well as provocateurs and others defending the status quo). Almost every category in the Above Top Secret forums is addressed in my work. These kinds of Internet discussions are usually plagued with naïveté, paranoia, provocateurs and other problems, but I am willing to be pleasantly surprised on this site.

Wade Frazier

posted on Feb, 5 2006 @ 01:22 PM
Some things I'm going to say:

1. I don't believe in Free Energy. From a physics standpoint, there is NO SUCH THING as free energy. Energy systems are closed. Matter systems are closed. You cannot create nor destroy energy or matter - simply convert them into other forms.

There is actually a very funny referance. Compare the idea of Energy to a game. Here's the rules:

1. You MUST play the game (everything that exists has energy in some form or another).
2. You can never win the game (you can never reach above 100% efficiency - since energy cannot be created)
3. Hell, you can't even break even (you can never reach 100% - some energy is always lost)
4. You can't quit the game, except on a very cold day (you can never reduce energy to 0, except at Absolute Zero)
5. It never gets that cold (the moment you try to do something to something at Absolute Zero, you introduce energy, and it's no longer Absolute Zero)

There will always be a by-product to any energy we create. Hydrogen Fuel cells combine Oxygen and Hydrogen. The outcome is water and energy. That's great, and we all love water. But that also means we have to produce Hydrogen (whilst it does make almost all of the visible universe, it's so light that it doesn't like being on earth very long) - which, tada, costs energy... more energy than we get out of the Hydrogen Fuel cell. The goal is for it to be only a little bit more, and then we can use powerplants that rely on other, less transportable energy options (such as geothermal) to create Hydrogen again. The goal is to make the conversion rate of Water into Hydrogen and Oxygen, and then back from Hydrogen and Oxygen back into Water again, as close to 100% efficiency as we can, so that we're wasting very little energy.

So now, Telsa's use of the earth's magnetic field as a power source. What will this do to the earth's magnetic field? Will it weaken it? What kind of by-product, except energy, is there? How do we do it exactly? What's the best way to do it? None of these have been answered.

So yes, we may be able to reach something close to 100% efficiency on energy, but we'll never get there, and there'll always be a byproduct of some kind, even if it's miniscule. Even Wind power has a byproduct - that being that there's less wind. Sure it's not much of a byproduct, but we're reducing the energy in the wind, and changing it into electricity.

Finally, corporations are not "evil". Governments are not "evil". They're doing what they do. The problem is that at the points where they're inefficient, they do things in a manner that is evil. Corporations, and governments, are not seeking world domination - it's just that the goal of a company is to grow, since growth equals profit, and profit equals good.

As said earlier, when an oil company backs out of a subsidy for some brand new technology, it's not because they're trying to stop it from usurping their company (since they'd get profits from the technology as part of the agreement for subsidising it) - but because they're making a business move because the technology doesn't seem to be going anywhere. The money they've invested would be BETTER spent elsewhere to make more money sooner AND later.

Governments try to get people behind them so that the party remains in power. If the party remains in power, then the senators/MPs/whatever also remain in power, which means they get paid, which means they can continue living the good life.

Remember this about ALL corporations and ALL governments; they are badly chopped up bodies, running around without a real head, rapidly losing blood.

Bush doesn't know what's going on. He's making moves so that he stays in power. He has other people tell him things about their departments (and these people are further informed by other people for sub-departments, and they are informed by people from departments below them). He only has a small idea of what's going on really. So when someone in the military thinks "Our navy needs more submarines." the next person up goes "We need more submarines to balance out our navy.", and the next person goes "We need a better navy to have a better military.", and the next person goes "We need a better military so that we stay competitive with other countries." and the next person goes "We need to stay competitive with other countries so that we can influence them in a manner that is positive for us." and the next person goes "We need to influence other countries so that our economy, our people, and our nation becomes better." and then the President says "Okay, I agree."

See my point? Everyone's running around, covering their behinds, thinking in their own world, and the result while good from each individual's perspective might not be percieved as good by everyone else. Economists might go "Military spending is too high, and would be better spent elsewhere", whereas those in Education would go "If we spent that money on education, we'd have less crime and smarter people.", and people in the Police Department would go "If we spend less on the military, then we'll have more crime - keep the money in the military."

Everyone's working in their own worlds, and no one really has ANY clue what is really going on.

posted on Feb, 5 2006 @ 03:05 PM
I strongly disagree with the notion of energy out of nothing, tell me why such a thing should exist, pls.

Anything uses some kind of fuel, if it's abundant, it may appear as an infintely available resource, but it ISN'T, it just takes ages to deplete, that's all.

Energy is available in many shapes and forms, do you know the so called 'killer lakes' choke-full of CO2? just put a pipe into it and suck the water out, it'll then deflate all by itself under great pressure difference (harvestable energy) sometimes, it's methane, so you can get fuel + and pressure, a very valuable resource IF you see it as such.

PS: a final word on 'zero point' (or whatever) machines, if they work, you're tapping into something you don't understand at first, that's akin to probing a gas pipeline with a blowtorch, folks.

posted on Feb, 6 2006 @ 06:55 AM
If all I wanted was to hear from people who announce up front that they do not like the IDEA of free energy, I would have continued conversing with Heinberg.

Neither recent respondent evidenced that they had read or comprehended the information presented in the links I provided. If the man from Ontario actually read where I mention Tesla’s tower concept, my point was Morgan’s response, not the potential environmental ramifications.

I am not interested in the “shoulds” of free energy. If somebody wants to pursue the problems with orthodox energy theory, they can get ahold of Tom Bearden’s recent tome or go to places such as this:

There is plenty to chew on. I am into data, not theory.

An informed, intelligent response (simply reciting physics and economics texts does not qualify) to what I laid out is going to take awhile. I will be back in a week or two and take a look. These are not trivial issues. I hope this forum can muster something beyond responses that seemed like they were written by CSICOP members.


[edit on 6-2-2006 by wadefrazier3]

posted on Feb, 6 2006 @ 04:41 PM
Well, I just took a look through that New Energy Movement website you've given us - and I don't see why you gave that to us. It simply is a movement - no working theories involved.

Yes, they're trying to find these amazing technologies - but I didn't see anything on their site that showed any of it. Just a bunch of "It's possible! We can do it! Soon..."

You come here saying that you want facts and data, and then you give me a link that has none? What I gave was fact - not theory. What I gave were also questions - not pointless banter. And you accuse me of that which you were guilty of?

The New Energy Movement is just that, a movement. If it's possible, then perhaps we will find it some day - but our current understanding of things is that it isn't possible. They say on the New Energy website that there is energy in nothingness - leftover energy from the Big Bang. It's true. It's called background radiation. Turn on your TV to a channel you don't have and get static. 1% of that static is the remnants of the Big Bang.

Can we tap into this energy? Possibly - but there's not a lot of it. As Carl Sagan said, all the energy every collected from every Radio telescope in the world, is only as much as the energy of a snowflake hitting the ground.

Sure there are things we don't understand fully - but that's just it, we don't understand it fully - so how can we possibly presume that these things can give us free energy? There is likely something going on that we simply can't see or can't detect.

So yeah, it'd be nice to have free energy - but the New Energy Movement hasn't provided ANYTHING that yet points to us having it soon, or having it already.


posted on Feb, 6 2006 @ 05:43 PM
I wonder if a device that truned a magnetic field on and off, that did not take much power (less then a WATT) would be possible with what we know about physics.

posted on Feb, 7 2006 @ 06:18 AM
Heres a device on NASA's page which the inventor has sold to a couple of schools so far. It puts out more energy than put in, but only about 30% more. Not enough to convert back into electrical and be self-powering. I dont think I have the link to this page anymore.

[edit on 2/7/2006 by ViolatoR]

posted on Feb, 7 2006 @ 10:45 AM
If you define "Free Energy" as an existing physical phenomenon in high abundance that we could potentiall harness and convert into usable energy... well then you are mistaken. You should use the term "Abundant Fuel Source." Then you would be okay

If you define "Free Energy" as a closed-system that is able to put out more energy than its total combined internal energy... then you are mistaken still.

For instance:
A power plant looks like it puts out more energy than it puts in - but that's not true. In most plants, there is a big ol' magnet that spins around inside a metal coil, whicn creates a changing magnetic flux, which causes a current of electricity. Something has to spin that magnet. You could do a few things. Make the wind spin it. Make a waterfall spin it. Make rising, pressurised water vapor spin it. That can be done by boiling water, either by burning stuff or fission for heat. Any way you cut it, something has to spin that magnet.

Those flashlights that don't run on batteries look like they run on "free energy" - but they don't. They run on the same principle as an electrical plant. You shake the flashlight, the magnet inside creates a changing magnetic flux inside a coiled wire, which then causes a current of electricity. I think its based off of Faradays Laws. Anyway, something has to shake that magnet... and it's you. When you shake the magnet, your muscles have to expand and contract. The energy needed for this is provided by a chemical in your body called adenosine triphosphate (ATP). ATP is generated by the combined biosynthetic processes of Glycolysis, the Tricarboxylic Acid Cycle, and the Electron Transport Chain. The starting material for these cycles is glucose....... sugar. Essentially, your flashlight runs on the potential chemical energy of sugar.

My point:
Yep - there might be some stuff out there that possesses a whole lot of energy. It might be well worth it to design a device that harnesses that "stuff" and converts its energy into a useful form. Will it be 100% efficient? Nope - that's impossible to due to friction of matter. Hell, even friction caused by electron flow in circuits causes a lot of problems in machines.

Only once someone can identify what fuels are abundantly available can we engineer something to harness them with.

posted on Feb, 16 2006 @ 07:58 PM
This forum is misnamed. Somebody who has borne the brunt of what the Above Top Secret world dishes out addresses a forum supposedly devoted to the subject, and not one response even acknowledged that such a world exists. This will be my last post here. I was not pleasantly surprised.


posted on Feb, 16 2006 @ 08:17 PM
It is common knowledge that the US military has acsess to just about every advanced technology known to man. However, the trickle-down effect makes certain that the general public doesn't get to discover this tech until years, sometimes decades later. Right now there is no telling what advances are being made in areas of energy generation that the public has no clue about. It took us how many decades to be informed about stealth tech????

new topics

top topics

<<   2  3  4 >>

log in