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.


~Free Energy~

page: 2
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in


posted on Oct, 3 2004 @ 10:49 PM

Originally posted by Aether

Originally posted by ledbedder20

And when any of you "debunkers" trying to cite thermodynamics or the limits of electromagnetism can explain why permanent magnets can perpetually hover opposite another similarly charged magnet without disrupting the energy/matter equation or what makes protons and electrons orbit each other, then you can say there is no free energy.

Until then, I don't think you really know what you guys are talking about. It's pretty easy to say "thermodynamics", but there are so many things that the worlds of physics and electrical engineering don't understand, so until conventional wisdom can completely explain every aspect associated with a unified field theory, don't say something is impossible. If you do, you're the one who looks like a fool, not the guy trying to figure it out.

supply of gravity from the earth, the sun, from any celstial body with mass. It's a force
So I would consider it a form of energy

Hydrogen radiation is another abundant resource in our universe.
So, for all of you guys who refuse to believe in the potential that this technology carries, good luck. Because I would hate to have such a pessimistic and negative outlook on everything, especially considering all of the evidence for an energy breakthrough.

[edit on 3-10-2004 by ledbedder20]

what is a charged magnet?

what energy/matter equation are you talking about?
Conservation of energy?

I thought electrons orbited the nucleus?

There's no such thing as free energy.

Especially with magnets, induced fields, ever heard of Lenz's Law?

When has a force ever been considered an amount of energy? I could punch through a wall with x amount of force, but still not create energy. Unless....maybe I created so much friction that my hands started the door on fire.

Where is this hydrogen you speak of?

You state a lot of things, they are interesting, but just don't match up.

"similarly charged magnets" therefore repelling each other, causing the perpetual levitation. Yes, I am familiar with Lenz's law, but I don't know how that explains the origin of magnetic force or how it disproves the possibility of over-unity devices.

Yes, conservation of energy. Here's a good link:
(from link above)
"We conclude that the law of energy conservation never did apply to electromagnetic theory."

You are right about electrons and the nucleus. My point was about the force repelling the electrons and attracting the protons and neutrons. Yes they have a positive, negative or neutral "charge" (supposedly) but why?

The force which you applied to the wall through your fist was fuelled by energy. If your body didn't have all of it's essential fuels (calories, proteins, amino acids, minerals, vitamins, etc..), then not only would you be dead, but you would be unable to contract and control the muscles necessary to make a fist and thrust it through a wall. Again, my whole point is: What is fuelling these forces? Quantum physics and electrical engineering, nor any other field of study has definitively explained what causes these forces.

I speculate that it's something beyond our perception, something having to do with frequencies or the resonant tones in the universe. String theory has come close to explaining the building blocks of building blocks, but has yet to be "proven". It still doesn't explain some attributes of electromagnetism or gravity though.

Since these things are beyond our perception, then we can't definitively say that something is impossible. Makes sense to me, especially in light of everything I have witnessed in my time.

posted on Oct, 3 2004 @ 11:23 PM
Ledbetter, unlike you, I am not a physicist; instead I'm just an old engineer a couple of years away from retirement.

You come up with something that actually produces the kind of energy you're talking about, or actually show me Tesla's magic car, and I'll believe you.

Until then, I don't; and I doubt if anyone else on this thread does, either.

posted on Oct, 3 2004 @ 11:25 PM
OK, a few months back, I went to an alternative energy convention. There were alot of people there with alot of free energy machines. None of them seemed to work for some reason though.
I saw a Alf Ac Dc Motor Generator, based on Edwin(E.V.) Grays designs (This is the exact one I saw). I was assured that it worked, the man who owned them just didn't feel like putting on a demonstration.
I saw an engine that I was told ran on water. The man who was showing this peice refused to turn it on because the government would have him killed.
I met a man who had an inverter system that made his solar cell charge at 300% capacity. He demonstrated this by plugging it in to the wall behind him. I never even saw a solar cell near this guy.
I met a man who had built a device that harnessed ZPF (Zero Point Field) energy but, it couldn't release it.
After 2 days of this, as a logical man, I came to the conclusion that; free energy doesn't exist.
Say what you will but, you can't get something from nothing.

posted on Oct, 4 2004 @ 12:10 AM
ots, believe me about what? I've only proposed the possibility of free-energy. Personally, I think we are very close to seeing some devices come to market, but everything I've said is in reference to reports on Tesla's automobile, which there is plenty of documentation on, and trying to open your guy's mind a little bit.

You can' hold everyone responsible for some devices that don't work. I'm not even saying that someone has invented something, beyond a doubt, that will produce free-energy. I personally believe that a couple of people may have, but I haven't personally witnessed them.

My whole point is that it's not something from nothing, but something from something else that we don't understand yet. Wow, for not being "experts" you guys sure have put your foot down on this thing. Do a little research, you'll find out that there's more to this than you think.

My post from this thread:

Well, there are quite a few inventors working on projects, which cost them money, just to be able to disclose them to the public, not in the hopes of making one penny, but in the hopes of helping the world. Here's a multi-million dollar project which is doing just that.

The people that stand to lose money from these inventions are the same people who control most of the economy, the media and the legislators/administration, so don't believe that it is beyond them to do immoral things just to keep making their trillions of dollars a year.

It's not "convenient" that these events happen to these inventors. Many, many inventors have been murdered, threatened, robbed, sued, etc.. These things aren't fake, do a little research. When these inventions do get media attention, the reports are rarely taken very seriously. They're just not part of the accepted course of history which we're all taught and spoon-fed to this day. To help you on your way to gaining a little bit of knowledge on the subject, I suggest researching the following:

-The Pogue Carburetor
-Tom Bearden and the M.E.G.
-Kohei Minato
-HIMAC Research
-200 MPG Vapor Carburetor from the seventies
-Nikola Tesla
-Howard Johnson
-Thermal Catalytic Cracking

Just to let you know, I wrote the business plan that helped secure investment funds for Pure Energy Systems and have corresponded with Mr. Minato and Mr. Bearden, as well as Sterling Allan. I have done quite a bit of research and investagative inquiries into this subject and the world of "free-energy" and over-unity devices is a very dirty world, so please don't dismiss the idea as impossible, just because it doesn't fit into your realm of accepted current events.

posted on Oct, 4 2004 @ 12:46 AM
Ahh... Nikola Tesla, interesting human being? I think not! But that's another thing altogether... Behold! The Wardenclyffe Tower:

Supposedly three of these could harness enough free energy for anyone around the earth, simply by inserting a rod/wire into the ground.

One of the most important inventions of Nikola Tesla was was the electrical transmitter. Shortly after leaving his Colorado research facility and returning to New York, Tesla began construction of an gigantic version of this invention, to be known as The Wardenclyffe Tower. Constructed between 1900-1905, the tower stood 187 ft into the air, with a 68 ft metal dome The purpose of the tower was to transmit wireless messages across the Atlantic and, as he had told his financier J.P. Morgan, provide free energy to the entire globe.

Tesla believed this to be a simple procedure, and later confirmed through experimentation, that the Earth conducts electricity naturally, much like a metal ball. Tesla hypothesized that Earth could be charged from a single location and energy could be safely extracted from any other point on the globe's surface.

The Earth could be pumped with electricity and anyone on its surface could remove it by simply placing a wire into the ground. This energy could be withdrawn in unlimited amounts for unlimited uses, free for all the world's people!

The Wardenclyffe Tower was never completed. Morgan refused Tesla the funds necessary to complete construction, and finding alternate financing proved impossible.

The Tower at Wardenclyffe was later dismantled under F.B.I. supervision.

Read on here

What's wrong with free energy? It's FREE, that's what's wrong! Why let this happen when you can suck oil from the earth and charge the people at a fine price!? The government is to blame for this. Think where we would be now had this been constructed and harnessed during 1900-1905. The insanity I tell you...

deaf fences hit

posted on Oct, 4 2004 @ 04:16 AM
The above device was being funded by an electric company and when they realized they would be losing money by people getting free energy they pulled the plug. (No pun intended.)
Another free energy mystery is the Bessler Wheel which was taken to the grave with the inventor because of greed.

posted on Oct, 4 2004 @ 04:29 PM
As far as I can tell, and I'm not entirely sure of being right on this, the Tesla tower seems to be just a device for exploiting the natural potential difference between the atmosphere and ground. Sort of like a giant capacitor. Certainly not an overunity device, but at the very least a neat idea. Tesla was a great man.

posted on Oct, 4 2004 @ 04:59 PM
Exactly its FREE, which means the governments wouldnt make as much money as using oil and the likes of earth distructing energies.

Also this is why we dont use water fueled cars etc because the governments are greedy people.

This is a good thread i was going to discuss this awhile ago but never got around to it.

posted on Oct, 5 2004 @ 12:20 AM

Originally posted by markjaxson
Exactly its FREE, which means the governments wouldnt make as much money as using oil and the likes of earth distructing energies.

Also this is why we dont use water fueled cars etc because the governments are greedy people.

This is a good thread i was going to discuss this awhile ago but never got around to it.

Exactly! If the government cared about the environment or helping people, why not throw a few million into some solar pv stations to provide "free" energy to everyone in the country. Or more wind farms. It just as easy for auto manufacturers to make an electric or hydrogen powered car, why haven't we seen more? I know the argument for hydrogen, harder to adapt, but hydrogen staions were supposed to be phased in starting a couple of years ago. I aven't seen any. And electric cars. Everyone has a spare oulet that they could plug their car into.

posted on Oct, 5 2004 @ 06:38 AM
I'm sick of hearing people saying "this can't be true because it breaks such and such law" - let's not forget that our understanding of the universe is constantly changing and laws that have been accepted for years are being constantly modified to explain newly discovered phenomena. Often we know the affects of a particular phenomena and we create a model that seems to explain that affect, but that does not mean that the model is correct.

Isn't it more likely that when an unusual affect appears to break one of our scientific laws it's really just an indication that we need to revise our model rather than discard the affect as 'impossible' or ignore it completely?

Can any one of the 'enlightened' ones, who are so sure of their 'laws', tell me how much energy there is in the Universe and, as energy cannot be created or destroyed (according to our sacred 'laws'), where did it come from? Also, if there is a finite amount of energy in the universe, what governed the amount?

I'm confident, that seeing as we appear to know everything there is to know about everything, I'll be inundated with straight-forward, 'matter-of-fact' responses.

posted on Oct, 5 2004 @ 07:16 AM
Except for a few reasoned and informed posts I dont think I have ever seen so much ignorance packed into a single thread in my entire life. If this isn't proof that public schools need to focus on science more I don't know what is.

posted on Oct, 5 2004 @ 09:05 AM

Originally posted by mwm1331
Except for a few reasoned and informed posts I dont think I have ever seen so much ignorance packed into a single thread in my entire life. If this isn't proof that public schools need to focus on science more I don't know what is.

Which posts have you deemed ignorant and which posts have you deemed acceptable?

Americans are Gods chosen people

Are you reffering to native americans or the europeans which committed genocide and forced them off of their lands? Last time I checked, your bible said it was wrong to murder, but I'm guessing it's okay with you as long as the people dying are "savages" or criminals in the state of Texas.

I know that's off topic, but I think there's more ignorance in your signature than in this thread.

[edit on 5-10-2004 by ledbedder20]

posted on Oct, 5 2004 @ 09:16 AM

Which posts have you deemed ignorant and which posts have you deemed acceptable?

Well this for one is so ignorant I would have to label it a billy madison.

A windmill is a free energy device, a solar cell is a free energy device, a fusion reactor is a free energy device, a hydroelectric is a free energy device. Even a non-rechargable battery is a free energy device.

It's free because the input energy is less than the amount of energy than you get out of it.

[edit on 5-10-2004 by mwm1331]

posted on Oct, 5 2004 @ 11:10 AM
I think the point that they were getting at is that there are plenty of "free" sources of energy at our disposal. I can't explain the reasoning for the battery comment, though.

The difference between a battery and solar power is that it took time and resources to create that battery, sunlight is there with no invested time or resources. However, if we want to harvest that potential energy, we must buy a photo-voltaic converter. This is definitely not free, so solar power is not free. But, with the investment paying itself over time and the fact that the technology is a completely non-polluting one, then it is a much wiser source for energy, economically and enviromentally.

My point is that there are other, more potentially powerful sources of energy that we just don't understand yet. I think zero-point energy or energy from the vaccuum is a viable alternative to fossil fuels and nuclear plants. Maybe even more efficient than solar, wind or water power. We just have to understand it and create a working device. I also think that magnetic and gravitational power will show itself as a contender for a source of energy soon enough.

posted on Oct, 5 2004 @ 11:56 AM
Has anyone seen the alien crop circle video that tries to show reasoning for them that is connecting to free energy sources?

I think I saw it on the ATS boards awhile ago, but i can't find it now. Regardless, basically, this guy broke it down and explained that the aliens were actually trying to show us a way to create free energy from (hydrogen?) atoms and magnetic fields. ; ; where the hell is it?

posted on Oct, 5 2004 @ 12:18 PM
I haven't seen that video, but I'd be pretty interested to see if the theories it proposes are plausible. See if you can get more info. on it. As far as why we haven't seen it (I'm assuming that you're referring to the technology being put to use), research takes alot of time and money. Also, you never know what people have come up with that hasn't reached market for some reason or another.

posted on Oct, 5 2004 @ 05:28 PM
haha found it. Check these two videos out.

Warning. The approximate running time of these two videos is a total of one hour. But, you don't have to watch the total length of the video if you want the free energy explanation. The first video lets say about 4/5 to the end explains it. The rest is just explanation of other crop circles.

Whoops. might wanna post the links : P

It's hard for me to understand what this guys talking about, but hey it could be a start to something bigger.

[edit on 5-10-2004 by Aether]

posted on Oct, 5 2004 @ 08:24 PM
Alright gents, I think this horse is just about dead, so let's kick it one last time and move on.

There are MANY effective sources of alternative energy, as well as many which simply aren't very efficient or practical. It is a given that these technologies tend to be supressed because of the economic problems they present, and that this is illogical.
An excellent example is the Chrysler gas turbine engine which would have appeared in the 1981 Chrysler New Yorker, if the government had not given Chrysler some much needed financial help in exchange for Chrysler selling the design to General Dynamics Land Systems, who put it in the M1 Abrams tank. (before anyone corrects me and says M1A1, the original tank was just M1.) Of course, the gas turbine was not much better than today's hybrids by most reports. If the government had considered phasing them in at that time, American auto makers would have gained a real advantage in the world market.

Unfortunately for the cause of cheap alternative energy, there are a great many quacks out there promoting fallacious concepts like free energy. AT BEST, these people are giving poor explanations of machines which do not violate any physical laws (and as such do not literally provide "free energy"). At worst, these people are pushing frauds on people eager to believe that they wont have to pay for gas in the future. In short, the greatest enemies of the this cause are its supporters in many cases.

Anyway, since we're all tossing out weird ideas, i'll toss one out too, just to show that I'm not dedicated to stuffing the pockets of OPEC and Halliburton. I wish I could say the following idea is mine, but it isn't, althought I rarely hear of it anywhere and i'm not sure where it orginally came from.

I think we've all noticed that boats go up and down on the water and make land-lubbers sick? Well this reciprocating motion that a boat is put into by waves can be used as a very large generator.

posted on Oct, 5 2004 @ 08:37 PM
Mr. Vagabond, your comments make much sense, but a simpler method for harnessing the sea is merely (he says, although there'd be daunting civil and materials engineering considerations) to build a polder across a place like the Bay of Fundy and emplace two sets of turbines: one operating by the incoming tide, the other by the outgoing one (it might even be cost-effective to use a single set of turbines for both).

Absent a half-hour period of negligible tidal movement and thus electricity generation, we would have large-scale hydroelectric power available ... least until the Moon wears out.


posted on Oct, 5 2004 @ 09:40 PM
I took electronics Eng. in college and I still think there are posible ways to get something for just about nothing. If a metal were made that could be heated slighty and just snap into being non magnetic and then just as fast become magnetic again, then we would have free energy. If that metal had the magnetic-conductivity of permalloy at 70 deg. F and then becomes as non-magnetic as aluminium at 75 deg. F, then it would be compact!

As a test for the people who don't believe in stuff thats not taught. Ground a 1" X 1" Nd: magnet and use a pointy anode (charged with 8-20KV DC-from a CRT HV board) and rest it just above the magnet so it arc's over. That should produce a cone of spinning corona. My proff. didn't believe me and I didn't want to bother showing him.

new topics

top topics

<< 1    3  4 >>

log in