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.

 

This is insane.

page: 2
1
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 27 2008 @ 05:59 AM
link   
reply to post by rawsom
 



"With cost of getting raw material drawn out of equation, most other costs would still be there when some free energy is created. Getting those materials is propably most of costs involved, but still, there would be somebody to send a bill."


True, oil isn't just for fuel, but that is it's main purpose, the rest with which we get various plastics and chemicals is merely a useful bi-product of the process, they couldn't believe they're luck!! shame it poisons surrounding areas and environment. If free energy was introduced, even with no moving parts, you would still have to get it repaired, but the costs would be seriously reduced, plus no more powerlines to maintain, power stations (or even wires!), just a little box in your house absorbing energy from the environment. Millions of jobs will be lost world wide, thats even before we get to the companies that sell it, they'd be obsolete.


"Does such device really last forever? As it goes with modern electronics, those are engineered so that they will break sooner rather than later. It doesn't make any sense to build a TV which lasts for 30 years, but from business perspective making one which lasts maximum of 10 does. That way you can sell three times the amount of TV's."


I agree with you here, but again, competetive marketing comes in, sooner or later, there going to get better, individuals (or groups) will be developing these independently, not all of these can be surpressed, much easier to deny the existence, for now...

As for whether the energy companies are buying these up, theres no question to me. At the moment they can't let this tech get out, to much at stake, instead of restricting the machines capabilites, it's easier to just deny their existence. Most people don't believe in them just for the fact they sound too good to be true, which is astonishing to me.

"All other things being equal, the simplest solution is the best.", that's the sentiment that got us here, going to need a new one to get out...

thanks. EMM

(quote tags)

[edit on 27-4-2008 by Jbird]




posted on Apr, 27 2008 @ 06:30 AM
link   
I'll reply tomorrow for all the rest who replied, when I get the time, but in the mean time I was wondering why is it that all free energy devices must neccessarily be small enough to be easily portable? What if such device is invented but it takes a huge power plant to operate? I have no objections to discussing about what would it cause if such devies would indeed be small enough to carry anywhere, though, but I would like to know that at what basis are such claims based on?

As I understand it, there are some quite clever inventions out there that can tap into reserves which are not usualyl tapped into. The problem is that energy created is simply too little to be of any use, even if you construct thousands of such devices.

If for example we could build a power plant that produces clean, free energy but can only generate one megawatt of power, and it takes a lot of space, it would propably still remain reasonable to build a 1000 megawatt nuclear power plant instead, if some aluminium factory happens to need one.



posted on Apr, 27 2008 @ 07:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by rawsom
What is it with free energy that makes people utter insane claims about it?


I would say that most people are ignorant about most topics thus resulting in insane seeming claims. Look at what you seem to be doing with your little knowledge?


Lets just start with one particular claim that aggravates me. That would be 'with free energy people in power of energy resources would lose control'.
Who on earth believes something like this could be true? This claim goes on to state that those with resources actually buy new inventions and bury them in safes far, far away, never to be used or opened.


I believe something like that to be true as it logically follows from having studied history that those in power have always attempted to control the resources that could empower those they wish to enslave. We know for a fact that oil, gas, diamonds, gold and various other resources are very much manipulated so as to ensure that the market does not become saturated with cheap products that drives down profits. As to the claims that 'governments' would lose control that's not entirely true as they do have other means they will just have start focusing their resources on. Normally people just claim that governments would have a far harder time manipulating people if people could have access to sufficient energy to heat their homes, power their various tools and institute a measure of climate control in say their personal greenhouses. It's not that they would lose control over night but that citizens will have a larger range of options when it comes to being more self sufficient.


Goverments, too, must be involved in this cover up because they would lose power and all hell would break lose. This is also perhaps the stupidest claim ever made.


You must not be reading many threads on ATS, or anywhere else for that matter, to consider that the stupidest claim ever made as governments have been known to be criminally involved in equally important spheres of human interaction such as the manipulation of money supply as well as intervening to push agricultural technologies and infrastructure into directions where it's hard to see benefits for all but a few very rich people.


If you do think about these things a little, it does not take long to realize that with free energy you would have almost infinte power over every single industry that uses energy. Free energy does not mean that there wolud be nobody to control it, quite the opposite.


But you have chosen to believe that the government will manage to control devices that weight ten kilograms and can power entire homes and small business for years and years without much maintenance. Sure governments might start calling people who use such devices terrorist and generally move in the direction of a police state but since their already doing that what's the difference beside out ability to gain a bit more control over our energy requirements?


With practically unlimited energy (because its free), you would also have unlimited power to weapons, which would mean that there would be VERY strict controls about who is allowed to actually produce free energy and who is not.


As if there is perfect gun control while people need more ammunition all the time. How are you going to track and control the small devices that might be used to reload or recharge a new generation of personal direct energy weapons? What trail will you employ to track down smugglers when no one has to sell anything after the original weapon? How are they going to control the production of free energy when it's no longer centralized in a few dozen large power plants with wires running to every home?


This means several things. For one, there would always be somebody in control, somebody in power.


And to some extent there have ALWAYS been such persons! The difference is that a few thousand years ago you had a fair chance of getting up in the middle of the night, waking up a few equally angry friends, and walking over to your tribal leaders hut to kill him and his few personal bodyguards. These days it's hardly that easy as no one is even sure WHO to blame for their misery given how many functionaries stand between them and their supposed leaders. There might very well always be someone in control but the question comes down to how much we will allow them to control? Why allow them to control the flow of energy?


That somebody, be it company or goverment, woiuld also get an insane amount of money out of selling that energy.


Why would they if you can tap into the same energy source at home for a once of payment of a few hundred or thousand dollars for your own ten or twenty kilogram device?


It doesn't really matter if it is free for them, they can still charge you and you would have no real alternatives within fifty years or so. This makes insane profits. You could knock out almost every single comptetitor out of market, as you would have total control for that technology, and after that charge whatever you want. That's absolute power, all because of free energy.


You presuming centralized energy , without any apparent reason or investigation of the possibilities, which will obviously result in positive changes even if not nearly as positive to the community as decentralized power generation.


Now, give me a goverment who does not want such power if available?
You may also want to give me an oil company that would not want such power?


Giving people who want power that desperately , especially against the wishes of those they lied to to get some power, more power is almost always a very bad idea and as far as your presumptions goes i must agree that 'free' centralized energy won't really be free and might in certain cases increase the control. That will obviously not be the case in France where nuclear energy production is nominally a state run affair and where people seem to have a much better grip on getting from their government what they want. IF the citizens gets the leaders they wish for centralized energy need to be a overwhelming problem to surmount but since we know that people rarely manage to get such leaders into power i will have to advocate for decentralized processes.

Stellar



posted on Apr, 27 2008 @ 07:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shazam The Unbowed
Free energy? I cant even find a free lunch.


So does that say something about your ability , when others clearly are finding such, or does it say something about the presumed absence of such lunches?


Einstein said matter is energy right? Is matter "free" Wouldnt "free energy" also assume the concept of "free matter" which basically means we are talking alchemy right? In the 21 fricking century?


Sure we are and the field or low energy nuclear reactions covers the fact that it does happen. Plants and animals have been transmuting elements for a very long time but since science as organized refuses to accept such low spatial energy reactions is possible it just gets buried while tens or hundreds of billions of dollars are being invested in high spatial energy fusion processes which have NEVER contributed a single watt of energy to any national power grid.

en.wikipedia.org...
www.lasarcyk.de...
experts.about.com...
www.rexresearch.com...



And you folks are still looking for the freaking philosophers stone?
Really?


I'm just looking for a few generally well informed people; sticking to basics you see.


Stellar



posted on Apr, 27 2008 @ 10:36 AM
link   
Where does this idea of a ten kilogram device comes from? The only possible solution appears to be exactly that, a small device that can be inserted anywhere. I doubt it will be so, but I do not claim it is impossible.

If its not a small device, there will be centralized control. Even if it is small, it is easy to create some laws that prevent certain amount of energy from being drawn out of it. But, again, I will return tomorrow with more throughout replies.



posted on Apr, 27 2008 @ 11:59 AM
link   
Hey all don't post much here but the "free energy" topic compels me to give my 2cent. I believe that the way your taught to look at something over and over again locks the door to any other possibilities. Such as trying to get something from nothing, well duh that would not be a physical reality. I think any answers will lie hidden within the laws (as we know them) of thermodynamics. Such as the supposed impossibility of perpetual motion. We can not create true perpetual motion here on earth as of yet (unless I have missed some true fantastic discovery or steorn FINALLY got there secret yet hyped gadget working) but think about the seemingly infinite rotation of the planets, or the other end of the spectrum we have atoms that make up everything that exists in our reality. These atoms have electrons and protons in orbit around it's nucleus. These orbits or spin to me are somewhat like perpetual motion. So how can we tap into some of these energies that are happening on infinitely large and small scales. Tesla had ideas of the Earth being a giant dynamo that if you were to somehow to get a conductor into the earth's magnetic field this could be a potential. This is what the sts-75 mission was actually for, dragging a 12 mile conductor through Earth's ionosphere but then how would that help us down here. I have done some reading about the crazy magnetic activity at Earth's magnetic poles and often wonder about how we could tap into that. These are just a few ways to work within the physical reality. I am sure if the politics was inline with the research needed to discover and research "free energy" and keep it real without trying to withhold for profit(yea right) and without trying to get an old hokey idea to work. The STS-75 mission was actually a huge success but was left unfinished at least as far as I know. Well enough for now I could probably go on and on. but...



posted on Apr, 27 2008 @ 12:58 PM
link   
This is an interesting link on small power stations that will in the future be miniaturised to be used as personal power stations.


dwb.adn.com...

I know, it is nuclear, but its an idea that must be considered. There might not be any other way to meet power demands in the very near future.
Zindo



posted on Apr, 27 2008 @ 03:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by rawsom
What is it with free energy that makes people utter insane claims about it? Lets just start with one particular claim that aggravates me. That would be 'with free energy people in power of energy resources would lose control'.

The oil industry is the largest controlled monopoly in the world, the economics of which influence and have a direct impact upon all other aspects of the global economy. A realistic alternative to fossil fuels will dramatically change that influence.


Who on earth believes something like this could be true? This claim goes on to state that those with resources actually buy new inventions and bury them in safes far, far away, never to be used or opened.

The work of Tesla is a classic example. Stanley Meyer's attempts are another - and there are many more that you are no doubt familiar with. Meyer in particular was offered a $billion by the Arabs to keep quiet.


Goverments, too, must be involved in this cover up because they would lose power and all hell would break lose. This is also perhaps the stupidest claim ever made.

Of course governments are involved. However, the element of plausible deniability is maintained by shadow governments who keep our political TV screen front men out of the loop.


If you do think about these things a little, it does not take long to realize that with free energy you would have almost infinte power over every single industry that uses energy. Free energy does not mean that there wolud be nobody to control it, quite the opposite. With practically unlimited energy (because its free), you would also have unlimited power to weapons, which would mean that there would be VERY strict controls about who is allowed to actually produce free energy and who is not.

Why would there be any need to restrict energy for domestic, commercial or industrial purposes? As you mention weapons, the Defence Department and NASA entered into contracts with Stanley Meyer just before he ‘passed away’. Lockheed Martin is also producing a new form of ceramic battery that is ten times more powerful and ten times lighter that the lead/acid equivalent. There is no doubt whatsoever that this new technology will be used freely and extensively for weaponry. Anyone who thinks Lockheed Martin is designing batteries for torches instead of hand held lasers and shock rifles, deserves to be deceived.


This means several things. For one, there would always be somebody in control, somebody in power. That somebody, be it company or goverment, woiuld also get an insane amount of money out of selling that energy. It doesn't really matter if it is free for them, they can still charge you and you would have no real alternatives within fifty years or so. This makes insane profits. You could knock out almost every single comptetitor out of market, as you would have total control for that technology, and after that charge whatever you want. That's absolute power, all because of free energy.

Elements of advanced zero point energy technology indicate that each home could easily accommodate its own generator in much the same way as a domestic boiler. It would be prudent to suppose that the monopoly of advanced energy systems is what the government and industry moguls are wringing their hands over right now.


Now, give me a goverment who does not want such power if available?

The governments of the US and the UK - Due to the phenomenal amount of tax revenue they would lose.


You may also want to give me an oil company that would not want such power?

Any oil company or supplier would want to control an energy resource that is in direct competition with itself. That is the problem – and that is why advanced alternative energy technology has been suppressed for so long.



posted on Apr, 28 2008 @ 07:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by painfactorisit
.. but think about the seemingly infinite rotation of the planets, or the other end of the spectrum we have atoms that make up everything that exists in our reality. These atoms have electrons and protons in orbit around it's nucleus. These orbits or spin to me are somewhat like perpetual motion. So how can we tap into some of these energies that are happening on infinitely large and small scales.


I truly hope there will be a way to do this, but I doubt a lot about whether it is feasible to get enough energy this way. There is not much energy in rotation of electrons, we can get a lot more just by destroying material itself. What comes to rotation of planets, I don't have a clue about the amount of energy there is in it, but the energy reserved in that cannot be released in any practical way. You could build dynamos in space that work with gravity, though, but then again you will need something huge to do that.



posted on Apr, 28 2008 @ 07:31 AM
link   
Thanks for all the replies, they made an interesting read and valid points were raisen. Sadly, however, most of the things to consider will have to be left without a definite answer. We simply do not have enough knowledge to answer key questions.

For one, goverments and industries propably could control usage of such devices if they wish to. The problem, anyway, is that even if (and when) we get free eneergy, that energy too must come from somewhere. That place may well equal to "nothing" in physical world, but as long as we do not know the effects of that into our physical world we would not be allowed to use such devices. If insane amounts of energy are drawn out of something, it does have an effect into something. I do not know what such effect would be, and for that reason I cannot possibly say whether we would be allowed to use such devices or not.

Another thing is this weird belief that all free energy devices must for some reason be small. We cannot know this either, we may be forced to build big power plants if we wish to draw practical amounts of energy out of "nothing". Because of that, I cannot say whether control is an impossibility because of availability and portability.

We also do not know what kind of materials are required to build such a device. For that reason, predicting availability of these devices is next to impossible.

Also, it is needed to know the amount of energy that can be gained with these devices. If the device costs a thousand dollars to make, but can only generate one watt of energy, it is useless in nearly all practical purposes even if it is free to operate. We do not know this, either.

So, discussing this topic as I see it becomes an absurd conversation as we know next to nothing about the things that are needed to know. We can discuss if we choose which premises we take into account, though, but that only tells us what the world would be like IF the devices are of certain type.



posted on Apr, 28 2008 @ 07:36 AM
link   
Losing tax revenues is a good argument, but I do not believe it to have any practical meaning. With free energy, economy would boom and we would have a problem because it woudl go way too fast to handle. The problem in such a situation is an economic growth of the magnitude never seen before. The growth and money gained from it would quickly balance out loss of tax revenue from a single source.



posted on Apr, 28 2008 @ 04:32 PM
link   
reply to post by rawsom
 


It's already beginning to happen. Check out this other recent ATS thread www.abovetopsecret.com...


Stockpiling? Don't forget the aluminum for fuel!

I have been following DR. Jerry Wodall's research into using aluminum and gallium to split water into hydrogen. I duplicated his experiment and was able to accomplish it successfully! I am also working on a home generator and rigging it up to run on hydrogen using the Woodall process.




[edit on 28/4/08 by Myrdyn]



posted on Apr, 28 2008 @ 05:17 PM
link   
Here's a story about a Man Who makes His Power Meter Run BACKWARDS using off the shelf technology you can buy an install yourself if you're a handyman. NOTE: You may be forced to watch a 20 second commercial first, sorry.

Nothing magical or unknown - just common sense and the willingness to buck the system.


[edit on 28-4-2008 by verylowfrequency]



posted on Apr, 30 2008 @ 11:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Myrdyn
 


Generating hydrogen is fine, but sadly that either does not produce enough of it to actually power a house. At least not with conveniently sized hydrogen production.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1   >>

log in

join