It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Free Energy and its Political Economic Reality

page: 7
20
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 11:03 AM
link   
Thanks again for the reply Wade, I appreciate the time you are putting into educating me. Yes I am at the very beginning regarding FE, and certainly naieve, but a little ways down the path regarding the 'other stuff'.

I think I understand what you mean regarding the heroes and I accept and agree with nearly all of it. Only one caveat is the need to believe in something as a physical reality which is not personally experienced, and to such an extent that one will put one's life on the line for it. That sounds a bit like religious fanaticism doesn't it?

Here's the connundrum for the layman... there's a bunch of guys saying they have invented and built various versions of a device which can put out more energy than it consumes, basically solving all the worlds energy needs, yet none are able or willing to demonstrate or perhaps make videos of demonstrations freely available - unless the links you posted do indeed answer that question, in which case I apologise and will find out for myself fairly soon.

The other problem of course is the layman's lack of knowledge of advanced Physics/Mechanics etc., so research that involves looking at drawings or scientific data can never be really convincing, as it can very easily be bogus. Take all the nonsense spewed forth about CO2 as the main cause of Global Warming - the layman can't understand either side of the argument so merely follows the herd or ignores the issue.

I'm sure you were dubious about what you call ET craft until you saw one with your own eyes. It would seem though, that the paranormal/mystical is far easier to experience than the alleged reality of FE ;-)




posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 11:15 AM
link   
Hmm, okay. Another long-winded post from Wade where he does nothing but refers back to his own website. Nothing to even bother debunking there. Martians assassinated Kennedy and I have a website to prove it too. Ho hum.



Originally posted by admriker444

Originally posted by NRen2k5
This is getting ridiculous.

We should make the boards accessible only to people with a high school degree.


I have a BA in Communications (gpa 3.6) from Rowan University in Glassboro, New Jersey.

And like Roger said, most of what I was taught is total garbage.

Do some research on the education system in the United States. The elite control the colleges through their foundations. The elite control which textbooks get published. The elite decide which curriculum is acceptable.

[…]





Originally posted by admriker444

there is an estimated 1 trillion barrels of oil left in the ground. At $100 per barrel (assuming thats the average), = 100 TRILLION DOLLARS.

Seems obvious to me why they'd keep Free Energy from us

Free energy, if it existed, would be an endless source of energy. At 10¢ per kWh, that’s $∞ (an infinite amount of money). So right out of the gate, that rationale of yours falls flat on its face.



posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 11:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by NRen2k5

And knowing what you know, you honestly believe the claims of people like Joseph Newman?


I don't think I have said or even indicated that I believe anyone's claims.

I know enough to understand that I don't really know much at all for sure, if anything.

Come on dude, make a bit of an effort to engage intelligently.



posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 12:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by RogerT

Originally posted by NRen2k5

And knowing what you know, you honestly believe the claims of people like Joseph Newman?


I don't think I have said or even indicated that I believe anyone's claims.

I know enough to understand that I don't really know much at all for sure, if anything.

Come on dude, make a bit of an effort to engage intelligently.

Fair enough.

I’ll readily admit that there’s plenty I don’t know too. Maybe the difference between us is that I err on the side of skepticism and you on the side of belief. But I won’t even claim to know you that well.

Just don’t be so quick to doubt and throw aside everything you know. Because then, you’re left with nothing.

[edit on 7-8-2007 by NRen2k5]



posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 12:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by NRen2k5
It’s a modern wannabe alchemists’ dream.

If you had taken Physics 101 in high school you would be quite confident of this.


Biological entities have been doing alchemy since time immemorial so there is no reason to suspect that we are not already doing so in labs or as part of military projects somewhere.

www.lasarcyk.de...

experts.about.com...

www.rexresearch.com...

www.cheniere.org...


Energy in = energy out.


By simply looking at the picture at the top of page nine you can confirm to yourself that a dipole releases more energy than is employed to create or maintain it. It would be better to read the entire article but i have not had much success when it comes to convincing the critics of free energy to do some actual reading.

science.uniserve.edu.au...


You can’t get any more energy out of a system than was put in.


Well no one is pretending that we do but then we did not create the universe, the sun or this planet so it's quite irrelevant to state that we can not get out more energy than we put in. Wind, sun and wave power proves quite clearly that you can get more than you put in so the whole conservation of energy law is ABSOLUTELY useless on local scales and especially not when our Earth is not by any means a closed system. Entropy is simply not a given everywhere.


When someone like Newman tells you that their free energy machine works on a subatomic level, they’re pulling the wool over your eyes.


On what level should a free energy system work then? Where do you think electricity comes from? Last i checked the electron was still a subatomic particle and, according to classical physics, quite involved in this whole energy issue. I don't personally rate them that highly but why on Earth would you criticise a free energy researcher for saying exactly the same thing classical physicists are?


They’re just trying to give you an explanation that you can’t easily verify or replicate since they expect it would be well beyond your understanding.


So his in effect doing what the massive majority of establishment scientist are doing? Talk about unfair....


The workings of atoms are well understood by egg.s out there.


Which is hard to believe when they do not know what energy is or where it actually comes from and much less how it powers loads!


This account obviously does not explain much about the circuit.
Indeed, in the Feynman lectures we read:4
‘‘We ask what happens in a piece of resistance
wire when it is carrying a current. Since the wire
has resistance, there is an electric field along it,
driving the current. Because there is a potential
drop along the wire, there is also an electric field
just outside the wire, parallel to the surface ~Fig.
27-5!. There is, in addition, a magnetic field
which goes around the wire because of the current.
The E and B are at right angles; therefore
there is a Poynting vector directed radially inward,
as shown in the figure. There is a flow of
energy into the wire all around. It is of course,
equal to the energy being lost in the wire in the
form of heat. So our ‘‘crazy’’ theory says that the
electrons are getting their energy to generate heat
because of the energy flowing into the wire from
the field outside. Intuition would seem to tell us
that the electrons get their energy from being
pushed along the wire, so the energy should be
flowing down ~or up! along the wire. But the
theory says that the electrons are really being
pushed by an electric field, which has come from
some charges very far away, and that the electrons
get their energy for generating heat from
these fields. The energy somehow flows from the
distant charges into a wide area of space and then
inward to the wire.’’ ~emphasis added!.

However, the result of such an application
and the resulting energy transfer in the circuit apparently did
not satisfy Feynman. He wrote: ‘‘this theory is obviously
nuts, somehow energy flows from the battery to infinity and
then back into the load, is really strange.’’4 Feynman, however,
did not persist and left the problem for others to find a
reasonable explanation. Can we say more about energy transfer
in this simple circuit?

sites.huji.ac.il...



It’s absolutely silly to think that charlatans like Newman and Meyer have actually stumbled upon something that they haven’t.


What i find even sillier discussing such vitally important matters with people such as yourself. Please explain to the readers here what energy is, where it comes from and how it can be proven to power loads without the use of actual circuits.

Stellar



posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by NRen2k5
Hmm, okay. Another long-winded post from Wade where he does nothing but refers back to his own website. Nothing to even bother debunking there.


Well he does in fact 'do more than refer back to his own site' but why is that wrong when it's people like yourself that in part forced him to compile the information? Do you think he likes repeating himself for your benefit?


Martians assassinated Kennedy and I have a website to prove it too. Ho hum.


That's why some people do not believe everything they read and do their best to supply numerous links to connect all the dots.


Free energy, if it existed, would be an endless source of energy. At 10¢ per kWh, that’s $∞ (an infinite amount of money). So right out of the gate, that rationale of yours falls flat on its face.


Well the problem with that theory is these devices are mobile and do not rely on energy networks; once bought the only recurring cost will be yearly maintenance with no inherent cost per kWh.


Originally posted by NRen2k5
I’ll readily admit that there’s plenty I don’t know too.


How very sane of you...


Maybe the difference between us is that I err on the side of skepticism and you on the side of belief. But I won’t even claim to know you that well.


I think the problem here is that you believe what you are engaging in is 'skepticism' when that's just not the case. Skepticism requires knowledge of the subject which are then employed to come to the most reasonable and sensible conclusion; since you do not have the knowledge your conclusions is predictable unreasonable and nonsensical.


Just don’t be so quick to doubt and throw aside everything you know.


Where energy really comes from is not 'everything' by any stretch of the imagination but some people are clearly more sensitive to accepting the type of change which might very well undermine their arrogant confidence in their own abilities. I appreciate the fact that it is for the most part a subconscious self defense mechanism but some of us have in fact learnt to cope with our obvious ignorance, by accepting these very counter-establishment views, and naivety and are doing our best to become less so.


Because then, you’re left with nothing.


Well luckily i can attest to the fact that there is always something more basic and solid ( i am agnostic, could be but have not proved it for myself, so i don't mean 'solid' in a fanciful way) to cling to when you expose these establishment lies about the 'true' nature of reality. True skepticism and science in general can not be based on any indulgent kind of fear, especially not fear of change, and i believe that allowing yourself such will totally corrupt your knowledge filtration processes leading to the type of beliefs the establishment propaganda machine is well capable of propagating.

If you must believe in something believe that humanity is worth fighting for as frankly the alternative is a wasted life that could just as well be ended right this moment.

Stellar



posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 04:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX

Originally posted by NRen2k5
It’s a modern wannabe alchemists’ dream.

If you had taken Physics 101 in high school you would be quite confident of this.


Biological entities have been doing alchemy since time immemorial so there is no reason to suspect that we are not already doing so in labs or as part of military projects somewhere.

[Kervran hyperlinks snipped]


That’s interesting. Thanks for sharing. While transmutation of certain elements to others may well be possible (and for the purpose of this discussion, I’ll assume it is) it has little bearing on this discussion because there is no proof of transmutation in Newman machines.




Energy in = energy out.


By simply looking at the picture at the top of page nine you can confirm to yourself that a dipole releases more energy than is employed to create or maintain it.

That diagram demonstrates no such thing.



It would be better to read the entire article but i have not had much success when it comes to convincing the critics of free energy to do some actual reading.

Good luck getting people to read when you point them to irrelevant and/or incorrect sources.




You can’t get any more energy out of a system than was put in.


Well no one is pretending that we do but then we did not create the universe, the sun or this planet so it's quite irrelevant to state that we can not get out more energy than we put in. Wind, sun and wave power proves quite clearly that you can get more than you put in so the whole conservation of energy law is ABSOLUTELY useless on local scales and especially not when our Earth is not by any means a closed system. Entropy is simply not a given everywhere.
Yes, I understand this. As I made perfectly clear before, wind, sun and wave power are not “free energy.” They’re simply freely available energy. Or from another standpoint, systems that employ them are open-loop.




When someone like Newman tells you that their free energy machine works on a subatomic level, they’re pulling the wool over your eyes.


On what level should a free energy system work then?

None. There is no such thing as free energy.



Where do you think electricity comes from? Last i checked the electron was still a subatomic particle and, according to classical physics, quite involved in this whole energy issue. I don't personally rate them that highly but why on Earth would you criticise a free energy researcher for saying exactly the same thing classical physicists are?
I’m not. I’m just stating the obvious. Newman and many like him know squat about subatomic particles, but cite them as the means by which their machines operate. They’re charlatans.




They’re just trying to give you an explanation that you can’t easily verify or replicate since they expect it would be well beyond your understanding.


So his in effect doing what the massive majority of establishment scientist are doing?

Not at all.




The workings of atoms are well understood by egg.s out there.


Which is hard to believe when they do not know what energy is or where it actually comes from and much less how it powers loads!
Yes, they do.

Established science is right. Your source is wrong. For starters, electrons are not energy. They are matter. The motion of electrons is energy. This should help you understand better how circuits work, why AC works, etc.

As for your Sefton guy, he’s not the most reputable of sources.
www.physics.usyd.edu.au...

[edit on 7-8-2007 by NRen2k5]



posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 04:39 PM
link   
Nren,

You have shown that you havent even really looked at Wade's website ith your last response to my posting.

I stated 100 trillion dollars worth of oil remains to be tapped and therefore free energy would be undesirable to their interests. You assume the big boys in charge could charge for free energy as a replacement source of revenue.

Perhaps you dont understand what the word "Free" means ? Or perhaps because you clearly know little on this subject you mistakenly assume free energy technology can be exploited by the elite ?

The free energy devices I have seen pictures of and those described by many witnesses (disclosure project - dr. greer) is the size of a large shoebox. It is a localized unit that does NOT need the elitist massive infrastructure. Therefore once someone purchases such a device, they are completely independant of the grid. And the goverment cant collect tax revenue from this either since there isnt any meter.

In addition, since these devices have no moving parts and dont break down they'd last forever. This again goes against the elitist agenda as well. Ever wonder why holiday lights rarely last more than a year ? We live in a consumption based economy.

A free energy device would literally end poverty within a generation. It would also mean the G8 nations must share power and stop exploiting 3rd world countries.

In short, it changes everything.

And now I shall follow Wade and ignore you. Its quite obvious you havent looked into this subject with an open mind. I wonder if you even realize your ignorance is helping to destroy this planet...



posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 05:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX

Originally posted by NRen2k5
Hmm, okay. Another long-winded post from Wade where he does nothing but refers back to his own website. Nothing to even bother debunking there.


Well he does in fact 'do more than refer back to his own site' but why is that wrong when it's people like yourself that in part forced him to compile the information? Do you think he likes repeating himself for your benefit?

That’s a fine non sequitur.

Read his site with a critical mind. You’ll realize that it’s nothing but a collection of tall tales.




Martians assassinated Kennedy and I have a website to prove it too. Ho hum.


That's why some people do not believe everything they read and do their best to supply numerous links to connect all the dots.

And you fall for that inane crap? I call it “proof by verbosity” and realize that it’s proof of nothing.




Free energy, if it existed, would be an endless source of energy. At 10¢ per kWh, that’s $∞ (an infinite amount of money). So right out of the gate, that rationale of yours falls flat on its face.


Well the problem with that theory is these devices are mobile and do not rely on energy networks; once bought the only recurring cost will be yearly maintenance with no inherent cost per kWh.

Assuming such devices existed, yearly maintenance and replacement would be more than enough. Like VCRs circa the late 1990s and turn of the millennium.




Maybe the difference between us is that I err on the side of skepticism and you on the side of belief. But I won’t even claim to know you that well.


I think the problem here is that you believe what you are engaging in is 'skepticism' when that's just not the case. Skepticism requires knowledge of the subject which are then employed to come to the most reasonable and sensible conclusion; since you do not have the knowledge your conclusions is predictable unreasonable and nonsensical.

My degree is in Electrical Engineering. What’s yours?




Just don’t be so quick to doubt and throw aside everything you know.

Where energy really comes from is not 'everything' by any stretch of the imagination but some people are clearly more sensitive to accepting the type of change which might very well undermine their arrogant confidence in their own abilities. I appreciate the fact that it is for the most part a subconscious self defense mechanism but some of us have in fact learnt to cope with our obvious ignorance, by accepting these very counter-establishment views, and naivety and are doing our best to become less so.


Because then, you’re left with nothing.


Well luckily i can attest to the fact that there is always something more basic and solid ( i am agnostic, could be but have not proved it for myself, so i don't mean 'solid' in a fanciful way) to cling to when you expose these establishment lies about the 'true' nature of reality. True skepticism and science in general can not be based on any indulgent kind of fear, especially not fear of change, and i believe that allowing yourself such will totally corrupt your knowledge filtration processes leading to the type of beliefs the establishment propaganda machine is well capable of propagating.

If you must believe in something believe that humanity is worth fighting for as frankly the alternative is a wasted life that could just as well be ended right this moment.

Of course, because the establishment must be wrong and the counter-establishment must be right. You mentioned something about naïveté a minute ago.…

[edit on 7-8-2007 by NRen2k5]



posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 05:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by kacou
Hello,
question for wadefrazier3.

In your website you mention Richard Heinberg’s Exclamation Points on free energy.
I give you my thoughts about Richard Heinberg laughs to free energy.
The party's Over relate really to human and the inability to find sustanable energy source.


We have already found such a source and Heinberg is either ignorant of this reality or more probably has decided to aid his establishment and standing in it by covering it up.


In this book it is clear that from the down of umanity, human have not yet reach the point of living in armony with a sustanable ecosystem.


Well it's one of those blanket statements i sometimes make and it's no surprise that it's as inaccurate. For the vast majority of the geological record ( especially the parts of it the establishment scientist have admitted to finding) people have in fact managed to live sustainably. If people were allowed we could probably still do that right now without any oil based farming.


Why would the "Elite" in this world would supress an energy that will free them from eventuale civilisasion calaps?


Because they do not much care for 'civilization' to start with and wont really miss it. These people are WEALTHY and they will protect and reserve just the volume of civilization they require to live the way they want so don't for a moment assume that you and 'them' have some kind of shared mutual interest. The idea of mutual interest is what they wish to sell you to gain your complicity and service but when if and when it serves their interest your as expendable as the rest of humanity.


Oil is at peak and the only alternative for this crisis, according to the "Elite" is to create another crisis wich could eradicate maybe half of the world population.


Oil in the ground is not 'peaking', despite the best efforts of the peak freaks to wish it so, and neither is the type of oil we could get out of the ground cheaply. We are unlikely to run into serious oil in the ground shortages in the next hundred years and long before that wewill probably have fusion and other highly centralized, but relatively renewable, sources of energy.

Well you might call that 'elite' thinking by in my opinion it's evidence of obvious psychosis.


World war, will must probably be already in they mindset.


It always has been as they are perpetually looking for means to cull us while using the confusion for social engineering.


Free energy can only save human race from oblivion, so why would the “Elite” will supress such energy?


Asked and answered?


They can only be “Elite” if the world exist as a all.


Do you have some kind of 'internal' document as last i checked they have in the past destroyed tens of millions of human beings to further their goals. How do you KNOW they want many if any of us left at all? We would all like to believe that but where is the evidence?


I belive they are clever enough to find a way to supress the “know-who” for free energy until the planet as reach some satisfacory population rate.


I don't see how they would so willingly let go of control over the technologies that would lead to so much independence of action for humanity when they do not even want to allow people to practice subsistence farming. They want you back in 1750 and failing that they will try to lock you up in inconsequential activities or just starve you to death.


They are doint it already with nuclear technology.9 country to day are nuclear capable after 60 years when only 2 country had it. So free energy will be treat the same, if it existed?

Kacou


So why is it all taking so very very long to implement? What do you think is the hold up and why are we according the establishment destroying the planet by using these polluting sources of energy? Don't you think the destruction of the life sustaining environment might just be part of their long term strategy?

Stellar



posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 06:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by NRen2k5
That’s interesting.


So when your shown to be wrong the proof is considered 'interesting'? It's always good to figure out where you stand and clearly your not the type of poster who's ever going to be wrong about anything.


Thanks for sharing.


I'm pretty sure your not.


While transmutation of certain elements to others may well be possible (and for the purpose of this discussion, I’ll assume it is) it has little bearing on this discussion because there is no proof of transmutation in Newman machines.


And then the irrelevant deflection when your primary statement is shown to be false.




Energy in = energy out.

That diagram demonstrates no such thing.


The diagram shows clearly that we only measure the energy that falls into the circuit and not the absolutely vast majority that flowing in all directions from the source dipole.


Good luck getting people to read when you point them to irrelevant and/or incorrect sources.


I always read but i must admit that i have wasted years of my life in doing so. At best it prepared me to deal with those in denial as i am fully aware of nonsensical things you believe in with many opinions as to why you still do .



Yes, I understand this. As I made perfectly clear before, wind, sun and wave power are not “free energy.”


They are when we evaluate them from a human perspective.


They’re simply freely available energy. Or from another standpoint, systems that employ them are open-loop.


So is vacuum energy but yet you just refuse to understand the implication of what you just admitted. Our whole energy infrastructure is predicated on the notion of freely available energy ( especially oil for instance) yet you have been taken in by the lie that there are no sources that makes energy even more freely availing. Why are all our energy needs being met by using our environment to create dipoles? Why can we observe dipoles ( magnets if you will) to be freely radiating energy radially and in all planes? Why draw a artificial line in the sand when it comes to just how free energy can be? Why refuse a free lunch by pretending that the assumption of a closed universe ( the only reason why we should ever bother to consider conservation of energy) is immovable fact with implications as to conservation of energy on local scales? When did you sun last tax you for the food you grew? When did you last pay the wind for cooling you? Do you have to pay waves to crash onto beaches? Conservation of energy is one of the most abused terms under the sun and frankly i'm not impressed with what you refer to as a 'degree in electrical something'.


None. There is no such thing as free energy.


Another silly deflection from your side! The big bang theory is predicated on the notion of quantum flux; free energy. Our whole universe could be a free lunch but here you go claiming there are no regions in this universe where negentropy reigns. How sadly misinformed you are.


I’m not.


You really were.
When a fringe scientist tries to employ what establishment scientist admits he is attacked as crank just because he happens to put together the evidence in a different way and arriving at conclusions that are contrary to establishment decrees


I’m just stating the obvious. Newman and many like him know squat about subatomic particles, but cite them as the means by which their machines operate.


So does everyone who are involved in energy production!


They’re charlatans.


Possibly so but that proves not a thing about vacuum energy or anything else.


Not at all.


Quantum 'physics/mechanics'' anyone? What have you been reading!


* I think I can safely say that no one understands quantum mechanics.
o The New Quantum Universe (2003) by Tony Hey and Patrick Walters
+ "The Quantum Universe has a quotation from me in every chapter — but it's a damn good book anyway" ~ reviewing the first edition of The Quantum Universe (1987)

Richard Feynman


Now personally i think that's still a valid claim.


Yes, they do.


No they don't!
( I have all year btw)


Established science is right.


Sometimes, obviously.. They are for instance accurate when they claim that gravity results in things being attracted to each other or when they say that F=ma for instance is a pretty good measure and results in practical knowledge that the bus ALWAYS wins when your not paying attention.


Your source is wrong. For starters, electrons are not energy.


EVERYTHING is energy/matter ( at least anything we can conceptually deal with as far as i know) and if you have doubts i think you need to get a refund.


They are matter.


Matter IS energy.


The motion of electrons is energy.


No it's not; feel free to prove otherwise as i am not even sure that the establishment claims that.


This should help you understand better how circuits work, why AC works, etc.


Lol....


As for your Sefton guy, he’s not the most reputable of sources.
www.physics.usyd.edu.au...


I remember the last time the universe 'changed' because the proof of a theory were being presented by a person who wore his hair longer than the rest. Since when does the universe CARE about the education level of those making observations and claims? The universe does not care and neither should you and unless you can show why this physics teacher is unqualified to make these claims ( one can do that in your crazy reality?) your fresh out of luck and i will just keep on concentrating on the actual EVIDENCE!

Stellar

[edit on 7-8-2007 by StellarX]



posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 07:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by admriker444
Nren,

You have shown that you havent even really looked at Wade's website ith your last response to my posting.


Actually, I have. It’s a load of BS.



I stated 100 trillion dollars worth of oil remains to be tapped and therefore free energy would be undesirable to their interests. You assume the big boys in charge could charge for free energy as a replacement source of revenue.

Perhaps you dont understand what the word "Free" means?

Of course I do. I’ve only explained it to you guys, what, three times already?



Or perhaps because you clearly know little on this subject you mistakenly assume free energy technology can be exploited by the elite?

Of course it can be exploited by the “elite.”



The free energy devices I have seen pictures of and those described by many witnesses (disclosure project - dr. greer) is the size of a large shoebox. It is a localized unit that does NOT need the elitist massive infrastructure. Therefore once someone purchases such a device, they are completely independant of the grid. And the goverment cant collect tax revenue from this either since there isnt any meter.
And you believe that these devices are real?




In addition, since these devices have no moving parts and dont break down they'd last forever.

Moot because they’re bogus.



Ever wonder why holiday lights rarely last more than a year ? We live in a consumption based economy.
That we do. But actually, holiday lights easily last more than a year. In a string of 200, you lose, what, 1 or 2 in a year?



A free energy device would literally end poverty within a generation. It would also mean the G8 nations must share power and stop exploiting 3rd world countries.

In short, it changes everything.

Motive alone is proof of nothing.



And now I shall follow Wade and ignore you.

Be my guest. You’ve demonstrated such ignorance so far, you might as well cement it. Without you reading my posts, I won’t have to bother refuting your fallacious arguments and bogus proofs.



Its quite obvious you havent looked into this subject with an open mind.

On the contrary, I have. And I have found nothing new. You, on the other hand, have a bias in favour of “free energy” claimants.



I wonder if you even realize your ignorance is helping to destroy this planet...

Oh please.


As ugly as the political climate is, scientifically and technologically we are in a constant march forward. Mankind will find better means of exploiting the energy sources available to us, sooner rather than later.



posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 08:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX

Originally posted by NRen2k5
That’s interesting.


So when you’re [sic] shown to be wrong the proof is considered 'interesting'?

Show to be wrong? I made a passing remark about people believing it possible to transmute lead into gold. You showed me a theory (not proof) of other, lighter elements possibly being transmuted.

Shown to be wrong? Please.




It's always good to figure out where you stand and clearly you’re [sic] not the type of poster who's ever going to be wrong about anything.

Speak for yourself.



Thanks for sharing.


I'm pretty sure your not.

??



While transmutation of certain elements to others may well be possible (and for the purpose of this discussion, I’ll assume it is) it has little bearing on this discussion because there is no proof of transmutation in Newman machines.


And then the irrelevant deflection when your primary statement is shown to be false.My primary statement being what, you shifty twit?





Energy in = energy out.

That diagram demonstrates no such thing.


The diagram shows clearly that we only measure the energy that falls into the circuit and not the absolutely vast majority that flowing in all directions from the source dipole.

There is no vast amount of energy flowing from the source dipole. Just what you see in the circuit.




Good luck getting people to read when you point them to irrelevant and/or incorrect sources.


I always read but i must admit that i have wasted years of my life in doing so. At best it prepared me to deal with those in denial as i am fully aware of nonsensical things you believe in with many opinions as to why you still do .

Only in your own mind. It’s you who’s believing in nonsense, not me.





Yes, I understand this. As I made perfectly clear before, wind, sun and wave power are not “free energy.”


They are when we evaluate them from a human perspective.

They are not free energy of the (bogus) Newman type.




They’re simply freely available energy. Or from another standpoint, systems that employ them are open-loop.


So is vacuum energy but yet you just refuse to understand the implication of what you just admitted.

Yes. But why mntion vacuum energy now? Stop trying to obfuscate things. As I’ve demonstrated already I’m quite capable of keeping up.



Our whole energy infrastructure is predicated on the notion of freely available energy ( especially oil for instance) yet you have been taken in by the lie that there are no sources that makes energy even more freely availing.

On the contrary. I know there are other sources, but I know a bogus source when I see one.

Admittedly, sometimes something real can seem bogus. But when something’s really bogus it’s pretty obvious.



Why are all our energy needs being met by using our environment to create dipoles? Why can we observe dipoles ( magnets if you will) to be freely radiating energy radially and in all planes?

Dipoles do not freely radiate energy radially in all planes.

And if magnets’ fields are made to do work constantly, they will eventually degauss.



Why draw a artificial line in the sand when it comes to just how free energy can be?

Because there are charlatans out there who just want your money. And unlike Big Oil, the Elite, or whoever you want the faceless evil to be, they don’t provide anything useful in exchange.



posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 08:18 PM
link   

Why refuse a free lunch by pretending that the assumption of a closed universe ( the only reason why we should ever bother to consider conservation of energy) is immovable fact with implications as to conservation of energy on local scales? When did you sun last tax you for the food you grew? When did you last pay the wind for cooling you? Do you have to pay waves to crash onto beaches?

And why give your lunch money up to a silver tongued charlatan who promises to tell you how to get a free lunch but refuses to give you anything himself? Why not just give it to the lunchlady? Why not just make your own lunch?



frankly i'm not impressed with what you refer to as a 'degree in electrical something'.


But you are impressed by the charlatans.




None. There is no such thing as free energy.


Another silly deflection from your side! The big bang theory is predicated on the notion of quantum flux; free energy.

And the Big Bang Theory is just that: a theory. We don’t know for certain what was before the Big Bang.



Our whole universe could be a free lunch but here you go claiming there are no regions in this universe where negentropy reigns. How sadly misinformed you are.

I’m claiming no such thing. You shouldn’t go putting words in my mouth.




I’m not.


You really were.
When a fringe scientist tries to employ what establishment scientist admits he is attacked as crank just because he happens to put together the evidence in a different way and arriving at conclusions that are contrary to establishment decrees

That happens in extreme cases, or, more often, when the “fringe scientist” really is a crank.




I’m just stating the obvious. Newman and many like him know squat about subatomic particles, but cite them as the means by which their machines operate.


So does everyone who are involved in energy production!

Nope. Those who design the systems are perfectly well aware of what they’re working with.




They’re charlatans.


Possibly so but that proves not a thing about vacuum energy or anything else.

Nor am I seeking to prove anything about vacuum energy or anything else. Just that Joseph Newman and some others like him are frauds.



posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 09:25 PM
link   
What needs to happen is someone has to plaster a very simple FE device design (with instructions on how to build it) on every messageboard, forum, myspace and blog they can. Then people could make one themselves, and pass on the design to others. This is what would change the world...



posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 11:25 PM
link   
There are far too many posts in the last day to adequately respond to. I’ll try to answer a few. On Heinberg, he is a neo-Malthusian:

www.ahealedplanet.net...

and that says enough about that situation, I think. On the elites destroying the planet they live on in the pursuit of power, even Noam Chomsky says that:

www.ahealedplanet.net...

That is not hard to understand, when you realize how drunk on power they are.

On seeing a FE machine for myself…I hate to tell Bible stories, but this might help things make sense. In the New Testament, Jesus performed all sorts of miracles - water into wine, raising the dead, healing the blind, and so forth. His disciples saw that stuff every day. When it came time for his execution, he said that he would conquer death. When he did, I imagine that most around him said something like, “So, what else is new?” Thomas refused to believe it was possible. I suppose he could be called a “skeptic,” but most around him probably thought he was pretty stupid. When Jesus said that those who did not need to see to believe were thrice blessed, was it really about “faith?” I doubt it.

Yes, for the everyday laymen who punch the clock and watch sports on TV with beers in hand, they are only going to “believe” in free energy when a FE machine is delivered to his house, just like Machiavelli said:

www.ahealedplanet.net...

I am not seeking their attention. Dennis, Greer and O’Leary are trying the populist route, and I am not. I am trying to help develop a high level conversation on these issues, not some lowest-common-denominator movement that is easily derailed. Been there, done that, more than once.

Roger, almost every observation/question you are making on FE is answered in my work, often in great depth. I cannot stress enough how much you have to get EXPERIENCE of the real world of the “fringes” for it to make much sense to you. Otherwise, you will be limited by your conditioning. The conditioning that we undergo in the West can be very subtle, and is probably impossible to entirely escape.

I began learning how limiting the establishment viewpoint was at age twelve.

www.ahealedplanet.net...

When my first professional mentor invented the world’s best engine for powering a car,

www.ahealedplanet.net...

I was fourteen, and again had my eyes opened a little more about how the real world operates. When I had my mystical awakening at age sixteen, and was given dramatic proof of how inherently psychic we all are:

www.ahealedplanet.net...

my eyes really began to open, and when I left home several years later, I was a mystical veteran and my education again increased. Early on, however, I began asking questions that were embarrassing to the establishment:

www.ahealedplanet.net...

and then I met Dennis Lee:

www.ahealedplanet.net...

and then my education leapt an order of magnitude or two. I saw and lived through things that people refuse to believe. I cannot tell my story in polite company, because people blow gaskets upon hearing the smallest fraction of it. When people close to me studied Sparky Sweet’s device:

www.ahealedplanet.net...

or when my partner was offered a billion dollars to cease pursuing free energy:

www.ahealedplanet.net...

and others have had shows that the average person can barely imagine:

www.ahealedplanet.net...

there is little that I call impossible, which is a favorite word in the “skeptical” vocabulary, one you will see used on this thread plenty, unless you put him on ignore like I have.

www.ahealedplanet.net...

I did not have any doubts about ET craft when I went to Gilliland’s Ranch:

www.ahealedplanet.net...

I went because seeing one had long been on my list of things to do, and if I could go to see one, and could go someplace where my odds were high, I would go. If it was a situation where I had to camp someplace for months to catch my glimpse, I would not have bothered.

I have seen WAY too much in my life to have the ET presence threaten my sense of reality. I knew many people who have seen them themselves. Being a Doubting Thomas about ETs, after the ride I had, would have been pretty stupid of me. And I am pretty sure that the attitude we brought to the ranch was partly why the ETs gave us such a good show. Two nights there, and I have had two impressive shows. I am sure that our attitude had plenty to do with that. I am going again this year.

If you get enough EXPERIENCE in the pursuit of the fringe stuff, and I gave you several avenues to take to get some, then you would find your “skepticism” waning about many things. Your universe of the possible begins expanding. You still keep your critical faculties (there is no appeal to faith in my work), but you realize that to deny things are possible, because you have not had the experience of some particular phenomenon, when you have experienced quite a few “impossible” phenomena for yourself, will seem silly. But, you will not get there until you seek EXPERIENCE. I gave you avenues to seek experience that are safe. I would not recommend Dennis’ or Greer’s journey to anybody, although the world may ride on their shoulders.

Going to bed now. I’ll write more tomorrow.



posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 11:58 PM
link   
Please, don’t bother.



posted on Aug, 8 2007 @ 09:48 AM
link   
Hi admriker444:

On that advanced technology stuff, yes, the Big Boys possess stuff far in advance of what any government has access to. That is partly why they call the shots, and not sitting presidents:

www.ahealedplanet.net...

However, their reverse-engineered ET craft and related technologies are very crude versions of the ET technology. Our understanding of consciousness is very primitive compared to the ETs, and an advanced understanding of consciousness is needed to truly reproduce it. Also, intention is critical. There is very powerful technology that will not work if the user has a malevolent motivation. It is kind of a failsafe, and that has proved very frustrating for the Big Boys, and they have tried circumventing the safeguards, with limited success.

At James’ ranch, as we watched ET craft fly over, James told us some of the things he has witnessed there. The craft will rarely come close to the ranch, because they get attacked and James also has to deal with low level harassment. One time, a craft came in low over the ranch and .ed toward Mount Adams, and a few miles away (when it was over a hill just out of the frame on the right of that first picture from James’ backyard www.ahealedplanet.net... ) it was hit by ground fire. When it happened, one of the black ops people also watching (they regularly hang out there, off-duty) told James they used plasma weapons and laser cannons on it. The craft barely wobbled and kept on cruising. Others have shown up at James’ ranch with some high-tech gear of their own, and one was able to listen in on the military and spook radio bands, and they could hear the crosstalk of those goons who lay in wait for the craft to fly over, so they can attack them.

Again, although the small minds who man those weapons may be acting out of fear, as well as following orders, the people ultimately in charge of those idiotic operations do not mount them because they fear ETs. They fire at them to discourage them from coming down and openly interacting with humans. There is no greater “threat” to the Big Boys’ megalomaniacal dreams than the ETs. That craft those goons shot at could defeat earth’s combined military might in a few minutes, if it wanted to. They could vaporize a continent in a few seconds, but again, that is not their motivation.

In summary, the “white” American military has technology that is pretty much standard issue stuff. The “black” military has stuff that is ten years or so a. of the market, and they also have weaponry that will not be allowed into the civilian population anytime soon, like what they shot at that craft over James’ ranch. The spooks who work for the Big Boys have the good stuff, like free energy, anti-gravity and the like, and, yes, they apparently have some advanced holographic technology, and they have probably used some of it to stage public events. If we develop our psychic abilities, however, we will be able to discern the real thing from the illusions that they concoct. There has been that holographic speculation about 9/11, but I have my doubts about that. My understanding is that the lines can blur somewhat. For instance, the fodder the Big Boys use is often “recruited” from the military, such as the people who used that diabolical technology on Greer and his team, to give them cancer:

www.ahealedplanet.net...

I’ll try addressing some of the other comments soon.

Thanks for writing, everybody,

Wade



posted on Aug, 8 2007 @ 12:15 PM
link   
Hi Wade

I find your last post disappointing, sorry. I think you are confusing me with adversarial posters, which is understandable given the slating you have taken over the years.

I do not deny the possibility of anything. I believe in the possibility of Free Energy. I am skeptical that someone has managed to create a working machine.

NeuronDivide says it quite simply in his post - put the info online. Put up videos of working operation, diagrams and build instructions all over the internet, so those with the wherewithall could duplicate. What is preventing this? Not a lack of medium, not lack of an audience, not patent law, certainly not the establishment unless they shut down the net completely.

It is also certainly not my lack or sufficiency of belief which makes public information possible. We already have the medium, and according to your writing, the technology is known by many generous and pioneering humanitarian individuals, not just one jealous or greedy scientist who wants personal profit for his invention.

I understand why the cynics say that FE advocates hide behind obfuscation and I can also understand why you would be guarded if what you write is true for you. However, the common sense question is not answered by any of the writing on your site or at least the links you so far posted for me (although I did not read every word, only about 100 pages).

Going to some US ranch to see flying objects is not on my agenda, and frankly is not going to adjust my world view a great deal. As an aside, why do you assume they are ET? Did you meet the pilots and confirm they were from some other planet? Please don't get me wrong here, I'm not naysaying your experience or trolling as you call it - I've had my own encounters, close up and personal.

The 'see it when you believe it' argument used to be my mantra way back when I was teaching fringe living, but a dose of what you would call mystical experience showed this new age toff up as polyanna BS based on misunderstanding of universal law.

In 3D, believe it when you see it holds true and is just as good a maxim to work from, or better so if you want to steer a path clear of the con men and fake messiahs, be they religous, mystical or intellectually biased. Again, I learned that one from experience.

We are talking about FE devices existing in 3D aren't we?

Wade, I am not any fan of establishment and I am not new to the fringe. I'm tempted to relate my own stories about what I have seen in this world and others, but right now I'd rather stick with the here and now reality and what I choose to call common sense.

Can you answer the question - "Why not make the information public for all those interested to freely access?" If we can stick with this aspect of the topic for future exchanges until I get clarity I would really appreciate it.

Best
Roger



posted on Aug, 8 2007 @ 02:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by NRen2k5
That’s not up to me.


To make specific claims? Why do i strangely make the specific claim that there were better battery technologies from the start and that they were simply not employed?


I’m not going to extraordinary lengths to prove the obvious truth if the conspiracy theorists in this thread won’t even bother going to ordinary lengths to try to prove their assertions.


Extraordinary lengths? The moment you go to any lenghts i would be surprised and until then im quite content just hanging around and showing up your ignorance and rational defense of the establishment have have already decided to join.


They determined it wasn’t profitable to keep producing and leasing EV1s.


And 'we' just believe them? Where is the evidence that it was not profitable , beside their say so, and why did they not increase the lease fees or try to sell the vechiles?


In the 1990s celebrities by and large weren’t yet on the environmental bandwagon.


They were in 1998 so please stop defending yet another inaccurate claim.


You’re just realizing that now?


Well you know i was kidding but it's not inaccurate as it does take intelligence to complete that type of course and delude oneself into believing what observation so blatantly contradicts.


So you tell me, what battery do you know of that works well at -30°F? You know, outside of Californistan, temperatures can actually reach that low, and even lower.


There are plenty of people in warm areas of the world who can afford this type of car and if you wish to avoid specific issues just stop responding.


Batteries don’t work well in the cold.



WHY ISN'T THE EV1 AVAILABLE NATIONWIDE?

Electric vehicle technology is rapidly emerging and because of urgent air quality problems in California and Arizona, GM has limited the EV1's initial availability to those states. As manufacturing capacity increases and electric vehicles become cheaper to produce, they will hopefully be more widely available. GM is learning a lot about how to market an electric car along as well as dealing with the complexities of setting up charging infrastructure in California and Arizona. One other issue affecting first generation EV1's is the lead-acid battery pack which is less efficient in cold winter climates, making them more ideal for California's warmer weather. The generation 2 (1999) EV1's will be equipped with either Nickel Metal Hydride (NiMH) batteries developed by GM Ovonic Battery Corp., or a new type of higher capacity lead acid batteries. NiMH batteries are not at all affected by cold weather, making them ideal for a wider range of climates in addition to offering double the range of the Generation 1 lead-acid batteries. The new lead acid batteries have better charging characteristics in hot weather, and are able to be retrofitted into Gen 1 EV1's. They offer a substantial range increase over the original Delco "Delphi" lead acid batteries that were installed in Gen 1 EV1's. NiMH batteries require special cooling which will prevent them from being installed into Generation 1 EV1's.

www.kingoftheroad.net...



This is to be compared with 37 miles per charge that I got with the lead-acid EV1; of course, the weather was in the 40's and low 50's Fahrenheit in December compared to the 70's this month, which also affected the lead-acid battery pack more severely than it would a NiMH pack.Early reports from people with NiMH EV1's, even in the cold weather, are that it is good for 120 to 160 miles per charge around town! Given that GM is charging less than 20% extra for the NiMH option in the 1999 EV1 lease, I have to wonder if anybody is going to go for the (improved) lead-acid variant

www.altfuels.org...



Additional information:

Nickel-Metal Hydride batteries provide incremental improvements in capacity over the NICAD at the expense of reduced cycle life and lower load current.

Research of the NiMH system started in the seventies as a means for hydrogen storage for a Nickel Hydrogen battery. The metal hydride alloys were unstable in the cell environment and the desired performance characteristics could not be achieved. As a result, the development of the NiMH slowed down. New hydride alloys were developed in the 1980's that were stable enough for use in a cell. Since the late eighties, the NiMH has steadily improved, mainly in terms of energy density. Design engineers have indicated that the NiMH has a potential of yet higher energy densities.

www.computerhope.com...


So clearly the EV-'s could have been more efficient from day one but it seems clear to me the idea was never to make a very efficient car that would sell and they were quite aggitated when people were still willing to pay for what they thought they sabotaged well enough.

Batteries work well enough in cold weather and this car was never intended to go anywhere anytime.


This is why a battery powered car is not viable globally or even nationally as a replacement to the gasoline powered car.


If your claims about batteries were grounded in reality that may have been so but your not even getting the basics right. Fact is we don't have to exchange all the cars on the road overnight but this would have contributed so it was sabotaged from the get go.


You’re still arguing on the assumption that many affluent people would have bought the EV1 to begin with.


And for some reason you are presuming that GM lacked the marketing ability to sell 1000 Ev-1's to more than 500 000 families with a net worth over 1 million dollars? I understand that being worth a million does not mean you can afford a 50 000 USD car ( three times the going rate for a regular 'luxury car') but do you really wish to pretend that 10 000 or more of those families could not easily afford this car if GM sufficiently played on the fact that they would be helping to 'save the world'?

Stellar



new topics

top topics



 
20
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join