Free Energy - A Reality Not a Conspiracy

reply to post by butcherguy


Marc here!

Take a look at this wesite and check the video\
video.google.com...=6129845848032016833

In my opinion this clearly shows over unity. It's rather a long video and the part that you need to pay attention to is when he starts to run this device with dynamo powered lights attached to it to show both the input and the output. I don't know if there is an english language version of this video but it is very well captioned and easy to see where this is going.The trick is now to use the portion of energy that exeeds the 100 percent mark and feed it back to keep the entire thing going while at the same time running a generator system. I have successfully done just that in 3D simulations with a device I have designed based on this man's research. I have now begun to build the actual prototype and I will post the deatails on my device as I progress.

reply to post by butcherguy


Check this video out
video.google.com...

It's a rather long video but when you get to the point when he attaches the lights to this device. It begins at the 14:08 minute part of the video and it clearly shows... in my opinion... overunity. It is obvious that the input is less than the output. I'm not sure if there is an English version of this video but it is well captioned and informative.

The only thing that needs to be done is to feed the energy in excess of 100 percent to run a generator. I have taken the ideas this man has developed and added a few of my own and I have succeeded in 3D simulations with a device capable of feeding this energy back into itself and self running.

I am now in the process of building a full mock up of a system capable of generating about a 150 kw of power and is designed to sit on a four by eight foot by one inch thick plate as a base. I designed it to use many parts that come from scrap cars and bicycles so they are readily available and relatively cheap.

Anyone who has the ability to use a lathe and milling machine to build a few components can do this. The only other major expense is the cost of the steel needed to weld up a frame to attach all the parts. It could be built for under two thousand bucks. How's that for cost effective power?

Just think... a hundred and fifty Kw could power a dozen homes without a problem... Not bad considering the cost of buying electricity to power those same twelve homes $400/month times 12 months times 12 houses = 57600. The $400 is just a guessed average based on the usage in my locale but it's obvious that there is a substantial savings potential here.

If I am successful in my prototype the oil industry is going to hate me but hey too bad for them! I'll just hire the workers they can no longer employ and the world will be a better place.

Originally posted by butcherguy
I watched the video.
Sorry. I was not impressed.

If someone has something that will actually create more energy than is put into it, they need to post the details of how it works........

or, post details of how to build said something!

How could the MIB, PTB, oil companies or whoever stop that?

Me thinks they are mostly charlatans and snake oil salesmen.

p.s. I don't think these things are not possible, just like to see some proof.

[edit on 6-4-2010 by butcherguy]

Do any fo you think its funny that cars that run on water cost a hell of alot of money?

reply to post by jazz10


What i cannot fathom is, if there are so many readily available and practical "free" energy options available, (I watched the video and noted there are hundreds of similar videos on the topic,and I've seen lots of them before, including some that have been tested and debunked for practical application by various documentaries) why doesn't a huge corporation develop and patent the rights to said technology and begin to manufacture the necessary components?
Lets face it if everyone on the planet is going to build one of the many multi component "generators" that can produce free energy surely there would be a highly and never ending market for part, repairs, manufacture of parts, etc for said devices.
Take solar and Wind power for example, YES the energy harnessed is free.But the components for creating the conductors are rather costly, and someone is making a lot of money from it.

The potential market created for such devices would surely be worth cornering.And it would not be a limited market at all.To start with parts would be needed constantly and if a company patents the technology they can have a monopoly on the product and charge, whatever they want for parts, service etc.

Having seen the video i note that his creation takes a lot of space up to light one bulb, he gives us no indication of how long the bulb will stay lit.
Can we see the type of system he must surely use to power his entire home? What he's not? WHY NOT if his free power works why show us one light bulb? WHY NOT A WHOLE HOME??
I have seen at several museums an exercise bike hooked up to a light bulb and you pedal until the light comes on.Yes its a fun little experiment to use your own pedal power to light a globe, but what is the practical application of this in an urban scenario? ITS just not viable.
I also wonder why we only get to see him drive his car a few meters.He does not seem to reach great speed.I would like to see him do a few KM or so around a racetrack with a standard petrol or hybrid or electric car that is available on the market today. To compare all aspect of performance and then a price breakdown before i could CONSIDER his alternative as a viable one.

Originally posted by StrangeBrew

"Complex technology of any sort is an assault on human dignity. It would be little short of disastrous for us to discover a source of clean, cheap, abundant energy, because of what we might do with it." - Amory Lovins, Rocky Mountain Institute

"Giving society cheap, abundant energy would be the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun." - Prof Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University


This is what we are dealing with, people who see the populous as cattle and worse.

Thanks for those quotes. I have often wondered the same. Suppose they are right? Would you trust the average Joe with the capability of creating an earthquake in your city?

Reproduced is an old article called; The Inventor Who Smashed His Own Invention:
'Nikola Tesla - discoverer of the rotating magnetic field, which is the basis for AC electric current - once demolished one of his inventions to prevent disaster.
In the 1890s, Tesla speculated about uses for resonance, the physical principle by which a high note from a soprano can shatter a glass. He invented a tiny oscillator that could produce vibrations with different frequencies and tested it on a half-constructed building. The girders trembled like a tree in a high wind.
Later, in his New York lab, Tesla fastened the machine to a pole and turned it on. The vibrations reached the local police station, where the furniture began dancing. Guessing that the source was the inventor, the police ran to the lab to find Tesla smashing his machine (with a sledgehammer). It was the only way to stop the vibrations.
Tesla also postulated that by carefully timing the explosions, he could create waves of increasing force capable of shattering the earth. Scientists of the day denied the possibility.'
(The above describes the only known earthquake to strike New York; and it was produced by Tesla.)

A photomontage from The World Today illustrated Tesla's theory that the Earth itself could be 'split open like an apple' by applying the principle of mechanical resonance.

Source -Probably not the best source, but I have heard the same from various others. Late; and off to work I go!

reply to post by mumma in pyjamas


Anyone prepared to explain any of this to me, i can be swayed if anyone has any valid explanations......

Originally posted by mumma in pyjamas
reply to post by jazz10

 

What i cannot fathom is, if there are so many readily available and practical "free" energy options available, (I watched the video and noted there are hundreds of similar videos on the topic,and I've seen lots of them before, including some that have been tested and debunked for practical application by various documentaries) why doesn't a huge corporation develop and patent the rights to said technology and begin to manufacture the necessary components?
Lets face it if everyone on the planet is going to build one of the many multi component "generators" that can produce free energy surely there would be a highly and never ending market for part, repairs, manufacture of parts, etc for said devices.
Take solar and Wind power for example, YES the energy harnessed is free.But the components for creating the conductors are rather costly, and someone is making a lot of money from it.

The potential market created for such devices would surely be worth cornering.And it would not be a limited market at all.To start with parts would be needed constantly and if a company patents the technology they can have a monopoly on the product and charge, whatever they want for parts, service etc.

Having seen the video i note that his creation takes a lot of space up to light one bulb, he gives us no indication of how long the bulb will stay lit.
Can we see the type of system he must surely use to power his entire home? What he's not? WHY NOT if his free power works why show us one light bulb? WHY NOT A WHOLE HOME??
I have seen at several museums an exercise bike hooked up to a light bulb and you pedal until the light comes on.Yes its a fun little experiment to use your own pedal power to light a globe, but what is the practical application of this in an urban scenario? ITS just not viable.
I also wonder why we only get to see him drive his car a few meters.He does not seem to reach great speed.I would like to see him do a few KM or so around a racetrack with a standard petrol or hybrid or electric car that is available on the market today. To compare all aspect of performance and then a price breakdown before i could CONSIDER his alternative as a viable one.

The ideas you can't fathom...it's really quite simple and you actually answered yourself in the same comments. It comes down to the whole monopoly you speak of. Most companies...especially everything related to oil, already have a monopoly. And in a way so does every big company that uses oil in it's products. The automotive industry is the biggest example. Electric cars were around a hundred years ago but why did it never go mainstream... because a monopoly could be had with very little cost involved in setting it up. Why has the electric car taken a hundred years to near reality... Because the big guys already have a monopoly and they don't want to screw with something that is working so good. Why rebuild an entire industry and all the companies that follow on the downside/aftermarket and retrofit everything that already exists to try to build a monopoly... when they already have it. Why change the infrastructure that the entire modern world is built around for the sake of making it new and different. Over the years things have progressed in the direction of those changes but it has come because of the ultimate need to change, because of our environment. If the pressures of lobbyists and you and me for a cleaner world and those types of ideas were not there, we wouldn't be going in the direction of change that we see happening now. If someone is successful in creating a device that can produce infinitesimal amounts of energy and the only cost associated with making that a reality is simply the cost of building that device, the release of that technology would instantly cause the big companies to follow suit.

reply to post by Gravitronic


Sorry for the lag in reply i did not realise that i actually got a reply.

Not that any of my questions were actually answered.
I was just given the same circular argument that big oil has prevented the technology from being produced.

That does not explain why an independent investor with a large amount of capital who is not affiliated with big oil has not embraced the technology if it is genuine.

I do not even doubt that there are great minds currently attempting to harness "free energy" i just am not convinced by any 'breakthroughs' that i have seen to date.This video was a particularly great example of the types of "free energy" that have no credit at all.

See my list of questions.

If Big oil is so all mighty powerful that it managed to keep down free energy why is it not powerful enough to have all the supposed evidence suppressed?

Alternative energy IS in use that has not been suppressed.It co exists with "big oil", so why would this example in the video be any different if it did indeed have any practical application?

reply to post by mumma in pyjamas


You're just being rational there

There's no need to suppress something that simply doesn't exist. We see plenty of claims but that's all, nothing that can be independently verified as an actual working concept.

'Big Oil' can't be implicated in the supposed coverup if these magical (& mythical) devices are machines because that implies moving parts which require lubrication and I'm not talking about a simple smear of grease here as I work with truly large machines producing alternative source energy (hydro) and they typically need 1000's of litres of oil for each bearing, not to mention the hydraulic actuators that control everything.

'Big Energy' companies would be all over any working proposal for cheaper (let alone 'free') energy to exploit it for all it's worth and the fact they're not onto something publicly tells me they have nothing up their collective sleeve to date capable of replacing the fossil fuel base generation to even the smallest extent.

Perhaps we don't see it because it doesn't exist but where's the conspiracy in that?
What if majority attention were directed toward the charlatans making false claims instead?

The introduction of free clean energy technology is doomsday for those that have profited through a deceptive means by selling an energy at cost when there is a free clean energy technology that is hidden. Hidden in order to profit either financially or socially.

Not 'free' energy but for at least an alternative to oil, this company seem to be doing well, was reading a bit about them a while back : Tesla Motors

Wiki page : en.wikipedia.org...

If only these people had more support and other companies started up doing the same thing we might start seeing changes in the near future.