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.

 

Unlimited clean energy from a vacuum?

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 29 2004 @ 08:18 AM
link   
NO!!! Not THAT kind of vacuum, although I'm sure that Hoover, Orek and Kirby would be jealous.

The Motionless Electromagnetic Generator holds promise of clean, unlimited energy for the masses. The six pound unit claims to generate over a hundred times more energy than is required to start the unit. This would eliminate our dependence on foreign oil, reduce emmissions from electric power plants, and put an end to nuclear waste disposal problems. Sounds great, doesn't it? However, this is not new technology... in fact, this type of technology has existed SINCE THE 1930s!!!

www.cheniere.org...

Since then others have followed suit with similar devices:

www.cheniere.org...
www.cheniere.org...

Then why have we not heard of such technology? If this has been available to us for decades, why have we not forsaken the filthy, resource draining energy methods employed today? MONEY!!! This is the technology that the major power companies; including oil, electrical and nuclear, don't want you to know about. Through their multi-billion dollar lobbying efforts they have managed to literally, and figuratively, keep the American public in the dark... as they did with the most recent black out and the energy crisis of California. This is the future. This is the research that our tax dollars should be funding.

According to Tom Bearden, inventor of the unit, "America's civilian nuclear technology cost a total of a trillion federal dollars yet delivers less energy than wood. The Economist says of nuclear power plants that not one, anywhere in the world, makes commercial sense.

Also, "Hot fusion research has received billions of dollars of Government money for over 50 years, AND HAS YET TO PUT A SINGLE WATT OF POWER INTO THE GRID."

Please take a moment to review this startiling discovery and join the thousands already aware of it's potential in countering the energy lobby and demanding that this technology be made available to the general public. This may be the answer to ending terrrorism and our involvement in the volitile Middle-East. More information is available at www.cheniere.org...


[edit on 29-6-2004 by John bull 1]




posted on Jun, 29 2004 @ 08:55 AM
link   
This has been covered lots on ATS do a search for free energy.

Here is even an ATS research project on this subject matter. No need to start a new thread!

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Jun, 29 2004 @ 09:00 AM
link   
Points;
1) Violation of Conservation of Energy, you've been duped. No system can create energy (except anti-matter matter annihilation, and destroying matter, e.g. e=mc^2)
2) nuclear energy provides a hell of a lot more energy than wood does... It will, in fact, one day, be the main source of energy while we transit to fusion
3) Hot fusion is only 20 years away, they are about to embark on a power plant that will be able to produce 500 MW of energy for 500 seconds, it's not that far away.



posted on Jun, 29 2004 @ 09:02 AM
link   
I did do a search on the subject and I only came up with the one thread that you linked me to... which is merely a discussion about a research project on the topic but no real meat and potatoes on the technology itself. I couldn't even find the research project. Did it ever get off the ground?



posted on Jun, 29 2004 @ 09:04 AM
link   
Yes it did get off the ground, it's why I am a scholar.



posted on Jun, 29 2004 @ 09:05 AM
link   
CAVEAT: Scholar's viewpoint:

I'm seeing all these citations on websites that look a little funky. I *have* heard of the Heaviside layer, but I'll confess that my background in physics is not great and I'm not reading all the pages.

I don't see that he's ever been peer-publsihed (scientific journal), even in association with a BunchOFolks (which is how most publications happen). While this doesn't mean he's a moron and it does NOT mean that his information is accurate -- it MAY mean that the "PhD" after his name (which apparently showed up fairly recently) is something he bought from a mail order house.

Y'all remember "Dr. Judah Ben-Hur," right? Heck, I can buy my cat a PhD if I'd like.

He seems to know his physics (or writes a good fight) but I do have some quibbles with what he says:

...simple vector equations produced by Heaviside and Gibbs captured only that subset of Maxwell's theory where EM and gravitation are mutually exclusive.

Heaviside and Gibbs were not THAT blind, and I think that saying it's a mere coincidence that they captured only the subset of Maxwell's theory where EM and gravity are mutually exclusive is either disingeous or an outright misunderstanding.

In any case, there's been a lot of research on this and nobody's been stopped by anything... except the fact that their devices don't work.



posted on Jun, 29 2004 @ 09:07 AM
link   
Also, like to point out...
If it was such a startling discovery, why isnt it all over the news?
I dont think I remember a single article about this, anywhere.
If you are going to claim they were lobbied into it or something, you mean the very same papers who so openly publish stories about insider trading, do undercover reports on our Queen, publish stories about David Beckham's sex life, etc? I think not


Also:


"All the coal, oil, natural gas, etc. ever burned, and all the nuclear fuel rods ever used, and all the hydroelectric dams ever built, have directly added

not one single watt

to the power line. Not one!"


Umm
then where does our power come from now?

[edit on 29-6-2004 by browha]


Also 2;

Ph.D., nuclear engineer, retired Lieutenant Colonel (U.S. Army), CEO of CTEC, Inc., Director of the Association of Distinguished American Scientists, and Fellow Emeritus of the Alpha Foundation's Institute for Advanced Study. Tom is a theoretical conceptualist active in the study of scalar electromagnetics, advanced electrodynamics, unified field theory, KGB energetics weapons and phenomena, free energy systems, electromagnetic healing via the unified field action of extended Sachs-Evans electrodynamics, and human development. Particularly known for his work establishing a theory of overunity electrical power systems, scalar electromagnetic weapons, energetics weapons, and the use of time-as-energy in both power systems and the mind-body interaction.


that's quite a range of subjects for a specialist to be looking over.. from The Theory of Everything to Electromagnetic healing? Heck, even Stephen Hawking can only handle the Theory of Everything at any given time..

[edit on 29-6-2004 by browha]



posted on Jun, 29 2004 @ 09:09 AM
link   
Read the following: www.cheniere.org...

It doesn't appear that the Conservation of Energy principles are being ignored. In fact, quite the opposite. Bearden contends that through minimal energy input the system is able to extract and convert available energy in the vacuum environment to sustain itself, almost perpetually... based perfectly upon the Conservation of Energy Principles.



posted on Jun, 29 2004 @ 09:09 AM
link   
Alternative Energy Research Project:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

We are just getting started, so we don't have much information documented yet. The MEG is one of the topics we will be addressing, as well as similar technologies.

I am skeptical as to the true nature of this technology, but that's why I started this project: determine if technologies such as the MEG and the Moray Valve are all they claim to be, and if they can be practically implemented.



posted on Jun, 29 2004 @ 09:14 AM
link   
Anyhow, I've just e-mailed my Physics teacher to give me his impressions on this.



posted on Jun, 29 2004 @ 09:16 AM
link   
I will follow your research through your link. I look forward to your findings. Is there any way that I may contribute? I am not a physicist, but am very interested in the topic... so I'm not certain what type of help I might be. Just let me know. Thanks again.



posted on Jun, 29 2004 @ 09:17 AM
link   
Oh, and hey, he also has a cure for cancer! This guy is a regular genius....



posted on Jun, 29 2004 @ 09:19 AM
link   
www.cheniere.org...

This is some correspondence between Bearden's team and a potential debunker using classical EM theory and applying them, incorrectly I should add, to Bearden's principles. Bearden's team brings up a number of great points in this discussion. All worth considering.



posted on Jun, 29 2004 @ 09:24 AM
link   
Bearden never claimed to have a cure for cancer. Please don't bend and twist to debunk. He has simply cited POTENTIALS for disease cures based on the development of his technology and other promising technologies. If researchers and inventors were to simply give up working on new technologies because of ridicule from skeptics such as yourself, we would have no telephones, satellites, x-rays... Heck, we'd have almost no technology.

I think that it is both wise and fruitful to delve into these areas of scientific discovery. They are little understood and have great potential. Please try to keep an open mind



posted on Jun, 29 2004 @ 10:03 AM
link   
Open mind? I am the symbology of open mind, coupled with logical induction.
He is saying that he has cured thousands of cases of cancer,

Cured thousands of cancer cases and other cellular afflictions
.



posted on Jun, 29 2004 @ 10:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by browha
Open mind? I am the symbology of open mind, coupled with logical induction.
He is saying that he has cured thousands of cases of cancer,

Cured thousands of cancer cases and other cellular afflictions
.



Bearden doesn't make that claim, not that I can find anywhere. However Piore, the founding father of the technology does, repeatedly. It appears to me that Bearden is simply trying to open up scientific investigation into the technology. What is so wrong with that?

Instead of continually trying to debunk Bearden, what not spend some time debunking the technology? So far you've managed to state that "[I] have been duped" based on the Conservation of Energy Principles which I have demonstrated Bearden is following.

Secondly, your assertion about the media... they do not cover that which they do not understand. In fact, there are hundreds, if not thousands, of topics on ATS that discuss, in detail, technologies not covered in the mainstream media. Need I also point out that the mainstream media derives it's profits from it's readers and advertisers? In other words, they are profit motivated hence the stories on people's sex lives and other tabloid stories.

To simply dismiss the potential use of EM technology, which is developing rapidly as science continues to up date it's theories and hypotheses based on sound research, based on ridiculous assumptions and subjective "logical induction" is disingeious at best. Let's instead try to put all of the evidenceon the table, review it and then attempt to refute it. Many believed that Alexander Graham Bell, Thomas Edison and Albert Einstein were crazy. Scholars of the day debunked and discredited them at every turn, however we know better today... don't we.



posted on Jun, 29 2004 @ 10:39 AM
link   
Good discussion going on, folks, and I'd like to see it continue. Perhaps we can contribute some things that would be helpful to the Alternative Energy research project.

I think one of the key points here is translating the web page into high school English and high school physics. I've seen an awful lot of things that look wonderful when draped with academic terms and look absolutly stupid in the cold light of day.

So... how DOES this "Vacuum Energy" work, anyway? Without all the fluff and hype about mathematical goombas?



posted on Jun, 29 2004 @ 10:51 AM
link   
The thing uses, from what I understand about it (havent had the motivation to read through all the technical jumble) vacuum energy..
Which, coincedentially, is only a hypothesis at the moment, and is no where even near proof.
It's the result of some equations being worked out, and used as a possible explanation for the continuing expansion of the earth..

If this is not correct, then can you show me where the energy comes from?Things like fusion, which provide more energy than they use, I understand, and I know where the energy source is, but this, I have no comprehension at all.
People like Einstein, Bell, Edison were never dismissed as crazy... Einstein was doing alot more on a theory that needed fine tuning, electricity ideas have been used for thousands of years, look up Baghdad Battery on the internet, and whether or not you believe it, there are various other cases of electricity being used in some primitive form, just not for machines and computers

I've been keeping track on the science section of the BBC.co.Uk website for 3 years or more now, this discovery was claimed in 2002 according to the website, and the BBC carried nothing about it, but it carried things about fusion plant, Higgs Boson, etc, that are fundamental. An alternative energy source that is known to work, if it has already been refined into commercialization, would definitely be carried as an alternative to the multi-billion dollar fusion schemes and plans. The reason why we continue to puruse fusion is that it is generally agreed that it will be the next main step away from fossil fuels, not solar cells (unless we can develop something with an efficiency > 40ish %)...

I'm just wondering, what level does your science understanding come to? I'm not going to make any insultsd based upon it, just wondering if there are anythings I should explain to you/you should explain to me...

--Browha



posted on Jun, 29 2004 @ 10:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by kozmo
Many believed that Alexander Graham Bell, Thomas Edison and Albert Einstein were crazy. Scholars of the day debunked and discredited them at every turn, however we know better today... don't we.


We can go on and on about that. That same debunking trend has been repeating for centuries already. And it hasn't helped a bit. It goes to the level of attacking the people/inventors instead of analysing and trying to refute the invention as Kozmo said. Edison, Tesla, the Wright Brothers, Galileo, Einstein, Reich etc... have suffered under this. Now Bearden is being unfairly debunked, instead of peers taking the responsibility to give objective reviews of his work. But that is not happening as usual.



[edit on 29-6-2004 by TheBandit795]



posted on Jun, 29 2004 @ 10:54 AM
link   
Oh, btw, Byrd,
vacuum energy is supposed to be a 'sucking force', from my understanding, acting on the universe forcing it to expand, (e.g. the force from the big bang doesnt account for it entirely, gravity from the mass inside the universe should have made it fall back upon itself), and it is, I believe, continuning to accelerate, e.g. mathematically put, it is an increasing function.. e.g. 2 the expansion rate is INCREASING..
This is somewhat paradoxical, and at the moment, vacuum energy is the only thing that can explain it, but our cosmological theories may need a total over-haul, with dark matter flaws, etc



new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join