Free Energy Invention Could Get You Killed ?

reply to post by danman23

---

thank you for your post,




my personal belief is that they are not worried about every one that is tinkering in their garage. i think it becomes a problem when you try to patent it and make money on it.




thats really cool and i wish i had the oppoutunity to try some things like your doing. i think electromagnetic engines are a strong contender to win a reliable energy source prize.


did you see the post on page two from StellerX ? he posted this link wich i think you might like ? i did...


www.rexresearch.com...
Kohei Minato: Magnet Motor

thanks for your posts,

what i really meant by this statement is... overunity technology can only be brought to the table for public consumption if we (the general public) demand it.

the question i have already posed is :


what is the purpose of free energy.... if we are still gonna be connected to the grid ?


i like the joe cell theory ...but you know that no matter what they put it in you will have to pay for it.

can you install this in a car and actually drive around in it ? and be legal ?

i dont think the car manufactures and D.O.T. are gonna let you do it . not with out them getting a piece of the pie....

[edit on 31-3-2008 by easynow]

I didn't follow all of your links in response but all of the references I saw were either catching radio waves or not producing any substantial current. A static shock from your rug has 30,000 volts but is useless. On the electron side of things we have the science pretty much down. On the dark matter side all I can say is that put up some solid research about it. I've heard the stories around the campfire myself but until something tangible is put out its a ghost. There is some work out there that you can research for yourself about anti-matter, but the general consensus is that we can blow up the universe with it so its best left alone.

What really bugs me about the whole thing is that the problem could be solved now with solar power and various bio fuels. We are as of 2006 (last time I researched) capable of growing algae that produces 50% fat by volume that grows in shallow pools of sewage in the desert. we have plenty of sewage and desert are available to farm this energy, but don't want to invest in it because the return is not immediate.

reply to post by easynow

---

Actually.. I didn't see that from this thread but I have read it before. That is a very very efficient electric motor. Amazing actually.

What I am doing involves only permanent rare earth magnets. No electrical input.

reply to post by jprophet420

---

Anything involving fuels you have to burn will create a problem with the global warming activists unless it's pure hydrogen and even that can produce oxides of nitrogen if you mix it with ordinary atmospheric air.

Tesla demonstrated pulling energy out of the air and it does work to a degree but requires massive antennas and capacitor banks plus it has to be capable of surviving lightning strikes (definitely not 'free' or even cheap energy). Just imagine every house having a 5000' antenna in the backyard and a converter substation - highly impractical. The energy density per dollar outlaid simply doesn't make it viable for commercial application.

Tesla's Pierce Arrow electric car demonstration would be a sensation even today and it remains unclear how he established an earth return from a moving vehicle. A possibility is that he transmitted 3 phase energy via discrete channels multiplexed into a single or separate RF carrier waves. The earth reference in that case is implied (starpoint) and doesn't need to be a physical connection at all. Transmitting signals of that intensity - it's a wonder a few states didn't show increased rates of tumors after his show of technology. He never revealed the details of how he did it after the press accused him of a public deception with 'magic tricks'.

I agree that if we do not reach for it, we will not get it....



That depends on whether the Elite try to sell us the energy they're getting for free (in fact, they likely are already). But if we can get it for ourselves, then off the grid we go.



Yeah... But the cost of a Joe Cell is not all that much. And the more things that are run with it the less things will cost (energy being removed from the bottom line), and once everyone has their own energy, and with tech at the stage it is in its development, we will have no need for money at all in the long run.

To get the idea, read my story at:

home.earthlink.net...



Yes, there are like a dozen cars running on it, presumably. Legal? I don't think there have been any laws for or against it. Since we are told the Energy does not exist, why would there be laws governing it? So I am guessing that it would be not illegal.



I don't think the car manufacturers care. Nor really does the DOT. The OIL companies...now THEY care. And some may have control of the DOT, so it may look like they care.

But if people could build the Joe Cells themselves, or buy them cheaply, they wouldn't care what Big Oil or the DOT say, with gas at $3.50 +.

Believe me, if you can get the Cells going, they will take off. As of now, the idea is scoffed at, ridiculed, and so on, but no one will build one and test it. I even suggested to Mythbusters that they check out the Joe Cell. Seems I was not the only one, too. They never responded, and, of course, they have never tackled the Joe Cell. Why do you suppose they don't?

I mean, what better thing to bust than that? And if it works...hallelujah!

I should have included nuclear as a source of 'free' energy as well because it simply uses the heat of nuclear fission to boil water for turbines and produces no greenhouse gases. The trouble is the cost of safe facilities to make use of it with backups on backups on backups for a virtually failsafe level of security against leakage or runaway reactions.

It's yet another case of the energy being free (even natural) but we struggle to afford the collection infrastructure.

And... It has the issue of what to do with the spent uranium...

I say we look into Derk Energy.

I have provided a link in this thread on what to do with spent uranium (and any other "hot" material). Nanotech has developed a material that can turn radiation directly into electricity.

Dark energy is not recognized as a known entitiy by most of science. Getting traction for your "Joe cell" will be difficult. Nanotech, however, is a hot topic and can gain great levels of funding.

If one picks his/her battles, they can likely see MUCH greater advancement in the war.

I guess you're referring to the nanotube developments currently being researched and yes, there's huge promise in that field. Like a solar panel that delivers hydrogen for example (titanium nanotubes) that's being worked on at an Oz uni.

Nuclear waste that primarily throws off alpha particles has been used for some time in association with thermopiles to make an extremely longlife battery too - I believe something like that was used in heart pacemakers at some stage and perhaps still is.

Well, I surely hope they find workable solutions to waste disposal. Sounds like they're on track.

As for Dark Energy... Despite the expansion of the Universe - which is sometimes explained by a "compression" in the time dimension - and despite the fact that the matter we see not being able to account gravitationally for the behavior we see in the Universe, I am surprised that "most of science" does not recognize that something is there.

Dark Energy, some say, is available from the time dimension. If the expansion has to do with the behavior of time, this makes sense. And I suspect that there are many "scientists" whose job it is to "debunk" Dark Energy. They surely don't want us to discover ways of tapping it for ourselves.

And I also would say that if we go under the assumption that Dark Energy CAN be tapped - by us, the average Joes in the world - and do our research into the anomalous (by classical science's point of view) results others have recorded (Viktor Schauberger, Wilhelm Reich, Royal Rife, Nikola Tesla), do experiments based on their work, we may see positive results. If enough of us do this, and successes come about in large numbers, quashing these results will be difficult at best, and may lead to a tipping point.

The motivation would be the realization that if we had all the energy we could use, money would lose its meaning. Money is, in the final analysis, a representation of an exchange of energy. Buying the food you eat represents to energy of the farmers used to produce the food, the energy to transport it and to store it in ways that prolong its shelflife (refrigeration)...

With today's tech where it is at, we can free ourselves from a requirement to work. We would congregate in groups with similar interests and views. We would have virtually no "evil" because the icon that is loved would be removed and Evil will have no root.

It would be heaven on earth. That's motivation enough for me to try (and I have had successes with healing devices based on Wilhelm Reich's work - enough to convince me that there is something to tap). I can't imagine, with this as the outcome, why everybody isn't at least giving it the benefit of the doubt, and working hard to bring it forth for all.

[edit on 4/4/2008 by Amaterasu]