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 Invention Could Get You Killed ?

page: 3
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in


posted on Mar, 30 2008 @ 10:10 AM
reply to post by Pilgrum

I think that the entire thrust of Bigfatfurrytexan's excellent series of posts here is to offer an entirely different paradigm to energy: not to continue to centralize it, to rely on the energy conglomerates and their massive infrastructure costs, but to disperse it among the population using rapidly developing technologies.

Avoid reliance as much as possible on your end of the equation (and maybe your job, sorry!) and innovative, lower cost energy becomes achievable. The question then becomes twofold, consumer awareness and the cost of installation vs. benefit.

On a totally different note, I've always been intrigued with Tesla and his Wardenclyffe project, and am surprised this hasn't yet been mentioned, as it is the most famous and ambitious of these stillborn free-energy projects. His vision was so revolutionary and the project so astounding in its implications that it actually makes me regret that I did not study electrical engineering to be able to properly evaluate the feasibility and theoretical basis of his theories, as well as their relation to Maxwell's unadulterated work on electromagnetism.

The stories that accrete about this core encompass an alternate view of electromagnetism, and the claims--scalar weaponry, over-unity, wireless transmission of energy, suppression, Russian advances, etc.--are so astounding in their implications that they almost demand to be rejected out of hand, if not for the fact of the man's genius and the persistence of the claims. In short, what is one to make of Tesla's work here?

posted on Mar, 30 2008 @ 10:27 AM

Originally posted by Duality
As much as we'd all love free energy, I just don't think it exists.


These theories don't even make sense - if the government is willing to kill to get these people taken out, why don't they take down these videos?

Why don't dictators in various countries not kill EVERYONE that opposes them instead of just those they think they can get away with?

Why don't they kill every single part of the theory so that there simply aren't sources of information on it, so that nobody can pick up where others left off?

Because that would require total information control which would invalidate the basic premise that people in the western world are living in 'free' societies where they have freedom of speech and the right to discuss all things they choose to. When people senses such controls it just becomes harder to propagandize them as they start to realise your power and lose faith in the system. When that happens you have to physically terrorize them to keep them in line and at that point they start shooting back which wakes up those who believe they are living in 'free' society. Russian dignitaries have often commented on how in Russia no one believes a damn thing the official newspapers and broadcasters say because of the relative crudeness of the message. In the end you have to choose between physical violence and information management and as may or may not been obvious democratic struggle in various nations have made obvious internal state terrorist and violence all but impossible.

It's very inconsistant. People always say it's because if they took them down it'd be 'too obvious' or something like that, but come on we're saying already that they're killing people for it.

I would say that they have created such a good illusion of freedom and have managed information so well they can now terrorize only the people they like while retaining the ability to maintain credibility with the public in general. If you can convince people that they are entirely 'free' to investigate and practice what they like they will believe you when your institutions call some ideas 'crazy' and will believe that it really just is 'coincidence' that certain groups of investigators/scientist/activists are met with fatal 'accidents' at a much higher rate than the general public

Seems extremely unlikely that any of this carries any weight. Also, do the laws of physics even allow free energy of this sort to be produced?

It depends entirely on who's laws you choose to believe and if those laws in fact deal with the question!

Surely when these laws were being discovered there was no way they could've connected it to future free energy devices and thought "oh jeez we'd better change the laws or otherwise people will see free energy is possible!".

It's all so silly.

You can in fact misrepresent a generally useful and accurate law for your own ends and this is generally how talk of free energy is being suppressed. Since the general public hardly understands these laws or their implications in general it's quite easy for suitably indoctrinated university graduates to tell everyone what is and isn't possible while not even realising that they are serving as the gatekeepers for true understanding of those laws. It is always best to co-opt large tracts of legitimate knowledge to do your bidding and thus gain the credibility that a few unqualified known government spokesperson/agents never could.

Basically your argument rest of the presumption that the means of population and information control does not evolve as people of this planet become better educated and more active in realising their own goals. It is for this reason that you consider the general absence of open terrorism and violence as some kind of evidence that suppression does not happen.


posted on Mar, 30 2008 @ 11:25 AM

Originally posted by Pilgrum
There is no 'free' energy unfortunately - perhaps we've been enjoying it far too cheaply for too long already.

Have you heard of the Joe Cell...? I contend that Dark Energy is there to be harvested by man, and I suspect it has been known for a long while, but was suppressed. I contend that the ways to draw it forth are inexpensive, can be created by most anybody with the will (and the small amount of funds), and could be powering our cars today if we all jumped in and worked at it.

If I had the money and a car, I would be builing a Joe Cell.

posted on Mar, 30 2008 @ 11:34 AM
reply to post by easynow

Hmm. I would like to see 'free energy' but however have seen people trying to push scams, and have debunked one here before.

1 Columb at 1 Volt. 1 Columb = 6.25 * 10^18 Electrons; 1 Amp = 1 Columb of flow Per Second or 6.25 * 10^18 Electrons per second


Air is an excellent insulator: electric companies can string power lines in the open air and never have to worry about currents dribbling out on their way from the power station to consumers.


You simply cant produce any sort of current with open air. Yet people claim to be able to accomplish this, hence the warning in your post. I used to have the
actual number of free electrons in open air available, if anyone has a source for this please post it and we will further mathmaticaly debunk the myth of 'open air' generators.

This is not to say that I do not believe we cannot find free energy, simply that it cannot be pulled out of 'thin air'.

[edit on 30-3-2008 by jprophet420]

posted on Mar, 30 2008 @ 11:48 AM

Originally posted by jprophet420
This is not to say that I do not believe we cannot find free energy, simply that it cannot be pulled out of 'thin air'.

You seem to have the idea that Dark Energy is the electrons in the air, whereas, in fact, it is what is between all those particles. It is a probabilistic animal, creating virtual particles constantly, and from this creation we can draw energy forth.

The "how" has been worked out by a number of people, and many had "accidents," committed "suicide," or had "heart attacks." And some number were bought out and silenced.

So in a sense, it is "thin air" out of which Dark Energy can be made to flow.

posted on Mar, 30 2008 @ 11:49 AM
reply to post reply jprophet420

thanks everyone for your most excellent posts...

i am kinda overwhelmed with all the scientific data that i am trying to comprehend at the moment because of this subject , got my brain spinning for

You simply cant produce any sort of current with open air.

Free Electricity...from Thin Air

Most people aren't aware of the free energy floating around them every day. I'll show you how to capture this energy and turn it into free electricity...seemingly from th... More»in air. This is completely safe, can be used to charge batteries for free, and would make a great science project too.
-: Free Electricity...from Thin Air
Free Electricity...from Thin Air Video - Metacafe

Nikola Tesla had an Electric Pierce Arrow back in 1930, the ICE engine was replaced with an Electric Motor. The power source was a black box of radio tubes, in the glove compartment. The box had an antenna sticking out. Tesla would fool with some tuners and tune in the right frequency and got 240 volts delivered through the air to his car. The car ran almost silent. He had the car stashed in a barn near Niguera Falls. He was sending the energy from the Power Plant, some how. He said this power could be made possible for everyone. J.P.Morgan did not like the idea, because where do you put the meter? Morgan stopped funding and Tesla's Wardencliffe Tower was taken down. We were denied FREE power. Now we pay for gas & SMOG.
Tesla's Electric Car

[edit on 30-3-2008 by easynow]

[edit on 30-3-2008 by easynow]

posted on Mar, 30 2008 @ 11:50 AM
reply to post by jprophet420

Free energy is not about making use of the electrons available in the air. That is WAYYYYY over simplified.

Free energy is about utilizing the energy of matter. Remember, an electron is a wave, not a particle. It is a unit of energy that creates a ripple around it, forming the properties of an electron.

Keep in mind, much of the energy out there is electromagnetic in nature. This means that, at some level, you can "swap out" a photon for an electron. Or, you can maximize the phonon ("noise") by converting it to electron. And let us not forget about the plasmon.

Or, you can take it one step further and follow the Poherian model of using the "universon". No, i don't understand it really well and research is difficult as it is all written in French. But other Pegasus members (and a few who aren't) are about hip deep in Poherian math and hot on the trail of the universon.

You need to study this on a subquantum scale. And you need to cast off the shackles of the laypersons understanding of "wavefunction" and "spacetime", both of which are misnomers.

posted on Mar, 30 2008 @ 11:58 AM

Originally posted by TheOracle
Well it's complicated. You could manage not getting shot and putting your invention on the global market. But you will get so much BS from everybody else it wouldn't viable, since there is little to no profit to be made.
For free energy you need big governments and companies behind you, and this my friend is unlikely to happen because our society is based on greed, not compassion.

If you get far enough along to bring your invention to market, no one will be tossing BS your way, because by then, it is a proven concept. But believe me, if an invention even looks like it's going to have funding for production, the goons will be all over it.

Where the BS comes in is right at the get-go, making the production phase a dream because no investors will come forth. If that is all they accomplish, they succeed.

posted on Mar, 30 2008 @ 01:23 PM
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

thanks for your post,

Remember, an electron is a wave, not a particle. It is a unit of energy that creates a ripple around it, forming the properties of an electron.

according to this ....the electron is a subatomic particle ?

The electron is a fundamental subatomic particle that carries a negative electric charge
Electron - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

lets say that someone comes up with this magic device that can produce free energy...what would happen next ? is my question

will the oil conglomerates be forced into investing in this new technology ?

why do i get the feeling that no matter what device is invented the greedy powerful corruption will continue ?

if man is going to be forever enslaved to this power grid...why even bother experimenting with free energy ?

the only benefit i can see would be to reduce pollution...or build bigger and better WAR machines...

[edit on 30-3-2008 by easynow]

posted on Mar, 30 2008 @ 03:38 PM
reply to post by easynow

I don't think many physicists who are working on groundbreaking work would cite wiki as their source of information.
That is a good hint that we shouldn't, either.

I am sure you have seen this video. It is the first "video of an electron":

I will point out to you that nowhere in that video did i see a "particle". I saw a waveform, but no particle.

I have email correspondance with various individuals. Some from this site, some not. One of thse individuals is actually a former dean and current professor (once he recovers from brain surgery, that is) in physics. He is quite well known in the field of nanotech. In discussing the aforementioned video, his response (in part) was:

However only very, very recently have interdisciplinary scientists, engineers, researchers & technicians began to be appreciated. I'd say the beginning started about 2002 but has now finally begun to make a real inroads. However you can be assured the old guard is resisting.
For instance I believe we need to begin moving away from the orbital thoughts of the "electron" to the "cloud" model. I think kids growing up to day can comprehend it. I despise the dumbing down of a curriculum to meet the needs of those with no interest to begin with. This is putting the U.S. at a gross disadvantage. Children's mind are sponge-like & let them soak it up while they can. A new study has shown its easier to learn there languages simultaneously up until age 12. Of course this is linguistic but still indicative of the minds capabilities.

The issue comes in our trying to describe these quantum features using vernacular that we are familiar with in our "macro" world.

posted on Mar, 30 2008 @ 04:27 PM

Originally posted by easynow

not sure really but drilling into the earth just dont sound

sure would be an interesting process to harness that...not really sure how they could do it ?

Well you wouldn't want to drill deep enough to create a volcano.
Just enough for things to start getting toasty, say in the 500 degree F range or so.

Popular Mechanics had a great article on how this could be done, see "Alaska's Energy Surprise", Feb. 2008 issue, page 65. Sorry (and interestingly) I didn't find the article on PM's web site...

In summary, a system in Chena Hot Springs Resort, AK, is pulling up hot water and powering the community with it. To quote Gwen Holdmann, the mechanical engineer from the article, "You know that woman who sued McDonald's over getting burned by a cup of coffee? The coffee was way hotter than the water we're using for geothermal power generation".

You wouldn't need hot springs for this; the idea is to install piping deep enough to use the earth as a boiler. Come to think of it, you don't even need the Earth; almost any adequate heat source would work. How warm are spent nuclear fuel rods?

There are probably better ways to convert heat into electricity, but this struck me as a compelling proof-of-concept.

posted on Mar, 30 2008 @ 04:45 PM
reply to post by gb540

Of course there are better ways to convert heat to electricity, at least if water is not freely and readily available.

Consider the possibilities of Thermoelectric Materials

And you mention spent fuel rods? How about material that can turn radiation directly into electricity?. Just remove the water and boiler from the equation.

posted on Mar, 30 2008 @ 06:08 PM
reply to post by easynow

Free energy does not exist. Therefore, if the inventors of free energy devices were killed, it was probably by they people they suckered out of their money.

posted on Mar, 30 2008 @ 10:06 PM

Originally posted by CharlesMartel
reply to post by easynow

Free energy does not exist. Therefore, if the inventors of free energy devices were killed, it was probably by they people they suckered out of their money.

thanks for your post,

how do you know it doesn't exist ?

do you know what Lockheed skunk works is hiding in one of their labs ?

there is no doubt in my mind that it exists...the question is we have the capabilities to harness it ?

posted on Mar, 31 2008 @ 12:14 AM
Free energy does exist and it's abundant in many forms. The part where the cost comes in is converting it to power things with very specific requirements like electronic devices.

I live in a vast country where many people are forced to live 'off the grid' due to isolation and they use a combination of wind & solar as their source of energy and I know that they outlay at least twice as much cash per kW.h as people connected to the grid over the life of their setups even though the raw energy they collect is free.

Say I offered a system that used this 'free' energy to provide a typical modern domestic household demand of 3000 kWh per quarter and capable of delivering 4kW peak demand for 2 hours/day and the whole system had a service life of 20 years. My price for such a system would be around the $50000 mark so the question is - would you disconnect from the grid for the satisfaction of being clean & green knowing that you're paying roughly double for the end product?

posted on Mar, 31 2008 @ 07:08 AM

Originally posted by CharlesMartel
reply to post by easynow

Free energy does not exist. Therefore, if the inventors of free energy devices were killed, it was probably by they people they suckered out of their money.

Dark Energy, the energy in the vacuum, is real, and can be tapped. Google the Joe Cell. I have built a healing device based on Wilhelm Reich's work, and I have felt the "cold" flow of the Energy coming from that device (which is attached to nothing, no cords, no batteries). I have seen it shrink my patches of psoriasis. It helps with pain and speeds healing of injuries.

So your statement is incorrect.

posted on Mar, 31 2008 @ 07:12 AM

Originally posted by Pilgrum
Free energy does exist and it's abundant in many forms. The part where the cost comes in is converting it to power things with very specific requirements like electronic devices.

Check out the Joe Cell. If one was attached to a gasoline generator, electricity would pour out with very little cost initially. Half a day would likely pay for all parts and labor.

It would all be so easy. If I had any money at all, and a car to put it on, I would be running my car on a Joe Cell.

Dark Energy is the key.

posted on Mar, 31 2008 @ 08:35 AM
Another potential source of energy is from sonoluminescence effects but I don't see any breakthrough announcements about harnessing it as yet. I've actually witnessed and felt the 'small' explosions that indicate some possibility of a fusion effect caused by cavitation voids collapsing and we've all seen the erosion it causes on the hardest stainless steel impellers as an indication of the energy released (& wasted).

posted on Mar, 31 2008 @ 09:49 AM

Originally posted by gottago
On a totally different note, I've always been intrigued with Tesla and his Wardenclyffe project

Tesla should be the patron saint of electrical engineering as he invented and virtually created the system we're so reliant on over 100 years later. He wanted to 'pump' energy into the earth so it could be extracted at any point on the globe which was a problem for his investors like J P Morgan (like how to meter transmitted energy).

He also invented radio (wireless transmitted energy) - Marconi worked for him and initially took the credit but things were corrected in legal action in 1932. His groundwork also resulted in television.

If anyone was capable of cracking the free energy problem it was Tesla and perhaps he did. We also have to take into account the scale of electrical demand growth since he invented the polyphase AC system as he envisioned the hydro scheme at Niagara falls as being sufficient to power all demand for electricity back then.

posted on Mar, 31 2008 @ 11:58 AM
Hi Everyone!!

Wow.. nice thread. I really really hope free energy does not get you killed otherwise I'm going to have some people knocking on my door soon.. Hahaha.
Seriously though. I have been experimenting with magnets and have come across a few orientations of magnets in motion that have a great potential for creating more power than is put into it. I actually just recently contacted an important organization about this last night. I guess if I turn up dead in the near future you will have your answer to your question. I am not necessarily saying I have created free energy, but I definitely have came up with some stuff that is worth developing. I am not bringing this up because I want publicity or anything like that. Since I've been doing this stuff I have always wondered if there is a possibility that someone will actually try to suppress me and what I should do about my ideas.. 1. Keep them a secret in fear of death? 2. Keep them in secret in fear of someone stealing my idea? or 3. Come out to everyone and just tell them about my ideas! I guess letting people know what I'm doing sooner or later would the best in case that something did happen people would know.
Also, I am not claiming to break the laws of physics here I am using rare earth magnets and they do take a large electrical energy input when they are manufactured. So there is energy being put into it, it just lasts for a very long time. (Until the magnets wear out... years.)
Maybe I'll start a thread soon explaining the whole thing. I am planning on doing this on an open source basis. Meaning.. that people will be able to duplicate my designs. (I see it as the only way to actually make this take off. If I ask for money people will think I am a "scammer")
We are in need of an energy revolution...
(Please.. no one start being negative here. There ARE ways to produce more energy than is initially put into it, but just shooting them down will get us no where. Do you really want to pay $3 - $4 for a gallon of gas for the rest of your life? I sure as hell don't. Think about how awesome it would be to be able to drive to California from the east coast for free, just cause you want to see the Pacific Ocean.)


top topics

<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in