Let me talk about "free energy", too.

Well I think its possible just very highly unlikely they would be able to silence everything. Many of these companies doing independent research have corporate standards that prevent people who suddenly quit from ruining their work. Now yes, it would slow it down severly but it wouldn't be lost. I am sure this would be true if someone was killed instead of quit. However I think we will be unable to convince each other of the others veiw point so we may just have to agree to disagree.

Well I did extensive research on Tesla a while back and don't remember most things. He was a brilliant man for sure, but sometimes I think he idolized too much on this site. its a shame he wasn't born 50 years later though. I think he's one of the great minds in history, but like all he was "different" and made some false claims Anyways I'm not sure what patents he had that were proven wrong but I am sure there are some.

This is going to ignite a new controversy because I know this show is frowned upon around here but mythbusters proved one of his ideas false. Again I'm not disrespecting the man, I respect him highly just we need to be skeptical of his(like all scientists and invetors) claims.

I really haven't seen anything that nasa could use instead of rocket propulsion. I am very interested in it though so maybe you could point me in that direction?

I'm not sure I agree with them hiding technology for fear of it falling into the wrong hands. Especially in certain fields. They didn't do a great job hiding the atomic bomb even before it was used in japan. I doubt they've managed to seal all the leaks.

[edit on 7-3-2008 by dascro62]

reply to post by dascro62


I don't believe its possible to hide everything either, and they haven't. I just believe there is a huge effort by many different organizations to suppress this kind of information.

By definition the military has to suppress their coveted technology in order to maintain a advantage on the battlefield. Having better technology not only saves lives (well our own, not theirs) but it also enables you to dominate in wars, such as the Iraq war where we just tore it up, and they probably didn't even use the good stuff. The F117 was developed in the 1970's and we know how long that took to be known. Even that plane is within the gray category of programs in that its known but the details are still classified. That also ties into why NASA can't show that type of technology, because they deal with white programs, which a lot of information is public, and of which such things are accounted for.

I've always hated mythbusters for that Bendini replication, it was a mockery if you ask me. They didn't even use magnets, and ripped on the guy even though they didn't even build it right. To me they are just simply entertainment.

To me this ties partly into why UFO's have to be covered up. The technology which could and is being derived from it is so advanced, the world couldn't handle such power. That of course is ultra simplistic and only a fraction of why its covered up.

reply to post by Freezer


Well I guess your post is best summed up by saying "the goverment and other powerful groups don't always act in our best interest". And that I will agree with. I think they would cover up some tech if they were able to.

As for Tesla, again I'll say he was a brilliant man. But I look at his findings with the same skeptisim that I look at any outrageous claims. The burdon of proof is on him. I am not quite ready to believe that he invented "free energy". Some proof would have me quickly change my thinking though.

I agree the military tries to cover up technology they have. But I don't think the Iraq war should even be mentioned. i don't think they have brought out the very secert stuff yet. And for an enemy like we face in Iraq i doubt they will. But again, I don't think they'll be able to hide everything.

This is venturing off topic but part of the reason i am skeptical of the claims that humans have a ET spacecraft in their possesion is we have always had a slow and deliberate move towards each technology. If we had a vehicle that was capable of that kind of travel I expect we would have rapid advances in technology.

This has happened before in ancient civilizations. But i am skeptical it has happened recently. Especailly in the 50's as common claims state.

The most appropriate law of thermodynamics to cite in order to refute the theories out there about "free energy" is not the second law, but the first law of thermodyamics. The first law of thermodynamics says energy is neither created nor destroyed. While one can convert one form of energyy into another form of energy, (e.g. chemical energy in fuel is converted to thermal energy and mechanical energy in a car's motor) one cannot get energy out of nowhere. Many "free energy" theorists claim perpetual motion machines and other contraptions are feasible.

This is not to say that there are no low cost ways of harnessing energy that already exists. The energy of the sun, wind, and flowing rivers can be converted to electrical energy. Solar, wind, and hydroelectric energy still obeys the first law of thermodynamics in that no energy is being created during these processes, it is just being harnessed.

of course there is free energy available out there---the wind---the sun---the ocean waves----falling water at a falls.

where the costs come into that free energy are involved by constructing the equipment to harness it maintain that and distribute it to the customers.

if the government would pay these costs then i suppose we could receive "free" power?

reply to post by mace778


I think that your description is good. I thought Redneck is asking why those stars have the initial potential energy. This is difficult to answer.

As for the macroscale phenomena, the physical laws in our "small earth environments" could be different. There are still a lot of issues we are not aware/clear yet. What's more, that is not my major.

The asteroids potential energy is related to the gravitational force the asteroid experiences and the distance from the earth. It is not a linear equation for potential energy as on earth because the gravitational force of the earth varies with the distance from it. On earth we are so close to it that we take the average to be 9.8m/s^2.

In other words the further away the asteroid is the weaker the gravitational force and the smaller the acceleration due to gravity. When it gets closer the force of gravity increases and thus the acceleration. In this way potential energy is converted to kinetic.

As it speeds away the kinetic converts back to potential.

A body in orbit with another body will have a total energy of the combined potential and kinetic energies. These energies exchange with one another in an elliptical orbit. When the body is at its closest to the body it orbits it is moving at its fastest when at it furtherest point from the body it orbits it will move at its slowest.

I was always taught that something had potential energy if it was stationary and had kinetic energy if it was in motion.

Scientifically no. You won't have free energy according to the scientific definition of it.

Financially, absolutely. I already do.
What did I spend on the parts for my Electrolysis system powered by solar panels and stabilized by a 12 volt deep cell? Approximately 320 dollars in total.

Has it degraded in capability? No.

Is it still producing power? Yes... more than I know what to do with. I burn off the excess for fun daily.

Am I spending any money on it now that it's built? Nope. I just let it run.


I'm not getting more energy out than I put in. The sun is placing ALLOT of energy into the system. Yes, it's more than I get out.

The point is I don't pay for the sun. And the energy from it simply goes to waste if I don't use it.

reply to post by MBF


No, an object can have both. If I toss a ball up in the air kinetic energy is converted to potential. It losses speed (kinetic) but gains height (potential). When it reaches maximum height there is no speed (no kinetic, all potential). Then the potential is converted back to kinetic as it accelerates downward. Its total energy is the potential and kinetic.

This by the way is a conservation of energy. Ignoring the losses to air friction the total energy does not change from the time it leaves the hand until the time it comes back down to the same exact height.

[edit on 8-3-2008 by 2 cents]

Nothing is for free, and nothing good is easy. There are some people with large investments that are making their own energy and not paying for it from a producer but they have a significant investment in it and it requires upkeep dollars to keep it going.

The question are they getting free electricity, running their homes and charging all sorts of vehicles? yes they are but there was a sizable investment first.

There is no technology out there present or future that will not require a sizable investment. This is the key. If someone can bring the investment cost down to the level that it does not destroy the average consumers budget, well then they have something.


We are still about 5 years off from nanotube capacitors to take the place of batteries. There are many promising technologies out there. But they will not come cheap or free.


I agree it is true you can not beat the KNOWN or accepted laws of science, I do not believe all of the laws are perfect or completely accurate. Nor do I believe all of the laws are known and anyone that does has to also deny every new technology to hit the shelves in the last 15 years. Science said we could not have lowK gates in microprocessors. The laws said no, but today they have been modified a bit to accept the reality, that low k gates exist and work and are now in many of our homes. Expect in the next 10 years for science and the known laws to be turned on their ears. Some big things are coming.......But still don't expect not to have a large investment. Energy is a commodity and if flow rate can't be determined or regulated the cost of investment will be.

reply to post by MBF


I think 2 cent gave a good description. Simply speaking, kinetic energy is related to motion or speed while potential energy is relted to the "relative position" in the case of gravitational, magnetic, and electrostatic attraction. There are also other forms of potential energy which is sometimes referred to as internal energy such as chemical energy and thermal energy. Those are not related to a "position".

Potential and kinetci energy can be converted to each other under certain conditions. In certain situtations, the conversion efficiency could be 100%, such as from kinetic energy to potnetial energy, from electric energy to work, etc. Under certain conditions, the potential energy cannot be converted to kinetic energy in a 100% efficiency. For example, heat cannnot convert to work (or kinetic energy) at a 100% efficiency.

But why not 100% efficiency? This is not answered from more basic theory. This is a phenomenon as discovered and explored by many many. Later scientists set this an theorum. The 2nd law of thermodynamics.

reply to post by johnsky


reply to post by Illahee


Both your posts showed good points. yes, we do have some free energy, say, the energy from sunlight that can keep us warm and the breeze from air movement to let us feel comfortable. Those are examples of "free energy". But if we want to make 'solar energy" to do work for us, it is not free. We need to invest something first. The difference in the way/manner of our exploiting the energy is the differnce in technology and therefore the energy efficiency and the economy of the applications.

Illehee, I agree and I like your description.

this was the top post ...im 3 beers deep................why would you get it for FREEE?................they dont wa\nna give you credit.......let alone sh@£.....

im english ive been around rich people....................Quaser??

reply to post by N.B.A.Y.S.O.H


I am not sure if I got you right. Actually we should have some free energy, as judged from deep in my mind. Where we have almost all the energy from? The sun, solar energy! The Sun belongs to everybody, not exclusively to anybody. If we are all born equal, we should all have our share of the enrgy, such as fossil fuels such as the crude oil, which is believed to be ultimately from ancient solar energy. However, crude oil is a monopolyed commodity. This is the reality.

As always, there is a huge gap between "what should be" and "what really is".

Originally posted by dascro62
Well I dont know what part of tesla's work you are referring to exactly. But i will say this. Tesla, as most brilliant people, was slightly eccentrc.

And Newton spent more time on alchemy than anything else. Should we have burnt his seminal work " Principia" because of that?

In his last several years he became slightly disconnected from reality. He spoke to a white dove daily.

As far as i know he cared for the dove and the talking part was embellished to discredit his later ideas.

he started to make some out of this world claims. Many of which have been tested and proven false. However some of his claims were still true.

Like? Feel free to note a few and then proceed to show how many untruths invalidates tested truths.

Having said all that, I know we are on a conspiracy site so most people think in that manner. But do not underestimate the curiousity, stubbornness and intelligence of scientists today.

I do not but apparently i understand human beings well enough to know that curiosity can be guided into exceedingly unproductive directions. Do not underestimate the power of educational systems that breeds compliance and higher learning institutions and groups that protect their interest be suppressing those people and knowledge that might reflect badly on their lives work.

i very highly doubt that the goverment could silence all of them.

And if you were not so closed minded you might understand that you only have to make examples of a few for the rest of the open minded few to take the hint and keep their heads down until their prospects look better. Should we discuss a few particular cases or will you do some research on your own?

If tesla wrote of an idea then I am willing to bet someone has attempted it. This is not to say these coverups never happen.

Sure many have and at least a few have claimed , and in my opinion proven, that his ideas were based in fact. Cover ups obviously happen and if we look only at the terrible nature and body counts of those crimes we do expose we can but wonder what they have and will do to keep others from reaching the public.

I think in current times, the goverment would be following these claims and try as they might, they can't hide everything. And thanks to those same eccentric scientists (like tesla was) we can be sure that we would be hearing of this research in the private sector.

How do you know what they can and can't hide? How did hundreds of thousands of people die in the secret bombing of Laos while that fact were hidden from the American congress? Do you think they care about the body count if it seems critical to their interest?

This worship of the public sector ( people who can and will be killed like any other) and 'free markets' really needs to stop. The free market is no more effective at doing what's best for the majority of humanity than science/ scientific institutions in general are good at revealing what people need to know to affect change for their general betterment.

Stellar

Like i said before. I posted ideas that are accepted by the general scientific community. Please provide proof of your ideas if you expect me to believe them.

Also you seem to not be able to understand the overall "gist" of mine and others comments. I like most here simply want facts. If you can prove your facts we will accept them. You are the one here with outrageous claims. Please provide sources so you can "enlighten" others.

You said you weren't here to BS anyone. It seems like that is all you've done.

I would like to say this about energy use and supply in general.

All our devices that use or extract energy do just that they use or extract energy. We cannot create energy (1st law of thermo) as nothing can create or destroy it.

Therefore, what we need to be doing as a species (when not motivated by greed) is find a way to harness or extract the endless energy that surrounds us in a cost effective manner. I think there are many possibilities here for that, the sun, weather, earth's rotation, wind, waves, tides, earth heat energy, etc. And I think there are many people working on these ideas, me being one of them. The chemical potential energy known as oil seems to have the whole focus of the planet right now - I think that is going to change.

Now having said all that I think relying on perpetual motion machines or over unity devices is a mistake. I don't think they exist or are even possible (they violate the 2nd law of thermo). I also don't think they are even necessary to solve our energy problems.

To me 'free energy' is having a cost effective (cheap) device that provides useful energy from an abundantly, freely available source. If solar cells were more efficient and not so expensive it would be a good example of what I am talking about. We need energy production or conversion at a local level, like in our back yards powering our houses. I and many others are working on such devices, I think it will happen one day.

Now I would like to bring up something I find interesting.
What force is it in the Universe that concentrates energy? In other words energy is already at higher levels moving to lower levels (2nd law of thermo). How did the energy get concentrated in the first place? The big bang? Is there a possibility that something is concentrating energy that we don't know about. I know of no laws in physics to explain how energy got separated from high energy to low energy except for the big bang. If anyone has any ideas I'd like to hear it.

Of course, I realize that what I'm talking about is something that would violate the 2nd law. It just amazes me to think that all energy was concentrated at the big bang and has been following the 2nd law ever since. I mean what if the big bang didn't really happen? Something else would have to be concentrating the energy right? As you can tell this stuff fascinates me


[edit on 8-3-2008 by 2 cents]

[edit on 8-3-2008 by 2 cents]

[edit on 8-3-2008 by 2 cents]

reply to post by 2 cents


I understand what you are saying. It must have just been my physics professors style or his way of explaining it. I was only the second batch through the physics classes at our college so I think they were learning themselves how to teach. I enjoyed the classes, but I hated the tests. I felt the same way about thermodynamics.

reply to post by MBF


I was a physics major in college before I dropped out and just got a 2 year degree. My Thermodynamics professor was a horrible teacher. I basically had to teach myself after college. Thermodynamics is not nearly as difficult as I thought it was in college.