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.


Unlimited clean energy from a vacuum?

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Jun, 29 2004 @ 11:01 AM
Edison was unfairly debunked.

England's most distinguished electrical engineer, Sir William Siemens, who had tried solving the electrical lighting problem for ten years, greeted Edison's announcement with, "Such startling announcements should be deprecated as being unworthy of science and mischievous to its true progress." Edison soon perfected his light and publicly demonstrated electrical lighting in Menlo Park, lighting the streets around his laboratory. The public came from miles away to see the night lit up by electrical lighting. Edison was demonstrating the "impossible" to the public. What was the reaction of science then?

Professor Henry Morton lived near Menlo Park, and could not be bothered to stretch his legs to go see for himself. Morton instead wrote that he protested "in behalf of true science." Morton wrote that Edison's experiments were "a conspicuous failure, trumpeted as a wonderful success. A fraud upon the public." Professor Du Moncel said, "One must have lost all recollection of American hoaxes to accept such claims. The Sorcerer of Menlo Park appears not to be acquainted with the subtleties of the electrical science. Mr. Edison takes us backwards." Edwin Weston, an expert in arc lighting, said that Edison's claims were "so manifestly absurd as to indicate a positive want of knowledge of the electric circuit and the principles governing the construction and operation of electrical machines." While the public was strolling under the radiance of the electrical lighting in Menlo Park, Sir William Preece, who had studied under Faraday, and was the chief engineer of Britain's Post Office, addressed the Royal Society in London, where he read a paper under the days murky gaslights. Preece said that Edison's electric lamp was "a completely idiotic idea."

Edison was probably the world's most famous scientist at the time, and he was publicly demonstrating something said to be "impossible." Not one scientist could be bothered to go to Menlo Park and see it for themselves. Human feeble-mindedness also applies to scientists, in spades. Scientists had abandoned one of their most sacred principles, the principle of observation.

posted on Jun, 29 2004 @ 11:02 AM
bit of interesting reading

Scroll down until you get to a long post by a Duncan Kunz(?) it discusses this website

anyway, a revolutionary idea this truly fundamental would have been carried, at the least, by the New Scientist, whichj would then have very quickly spread... I mean it's like me announcing we have proof, and a workable product, to solve world hunger! Fundamental stuff here

[edit on 29-6-2004 by browha]

posted on Jun, 29 2004 @ 11:06 AM
Basically, in a nut shell, a vacuum is capable of infinite energy density and intensity. By utilizing electromagnetics to "bend" space/time within the vacuum, one is able to generate polarity which, in turn creates an energy current within the mechanism and outside of the mechanism. The energy within the mechanism powers the mechanism in perpetuity while the external energy can be captured and used.

It is far too complex to try to explain in simple layman terms as there are many different theories and axioms put to work here. You must, and I know this is difficult, put your mind to the ultimate workout and attempt to follow Bearden's theory through it various processes and principles as found here:

I realize it's like following a legal document, but Bearden has really done a very good job of laying his explainations atop grounded theory. I also realize that one must put a great deal of faith into the appropriate usage of such theories as outlined in the document. The purpose of an in-depth research study would be to confirm the proper usage of such theories in detail.

I'm sorry I couldn't be more help, but it would really require some disciplined reading on your part to grasp the physics involved here. If you decide to undertake such a task, I can assure you that it will be both fascinating and rewarding. Good luck.

posted on Jun, 29 2004 @ 11:14 AM
Thank you for your understanding. As I have stated previously I am not a physicist nor an engineer. I have been involved in the field of engineering technology for nearly 15 years as a Sales Manager, nothing more. However, I have taken a very keen interest in alternative energy sources for years and have a general understaing of physical principles.

In reviewing Bearden's work, I fully admit to not having a detailed understanding of his research. That is why I have undertaken the task to carefully research his assertions and make sure that they work with accepted science. In doing so I have discovered that not even "accepted science" is truly accepted in some instances and that laws that previoulsy governed physics have been proven to have flaws or exceptions to rules. That is what fascinates me about Bearden's work.

Please understand, I am not stating that Bearden is 100% correct or that his "technology" is either functional nor infallible. But I am hopeful to someday get to the bottom of it... hopefully with the help of the other memebers of ATS.

posted on Jun, 29 2004 @ 11:15 AM
Hey, listen mate, this talk is getting right out of my depth at the moment, and I have no shame in admitting it. You're probably better off e-mailing someone at a university (try or a New Scientist journalist, but it's been a good debate! I have a passion for Physics (hoping to do a PhD in the future)

posted on Jun, 29 2004 @ 11:20 AM

Originally posted by kozmo
In doing so I have discovered that not even "accepted science" is truly accepted in some instances and that laws that previoulsy governed physics have been proven to have flaws or exceptions to rules. That is what fascinates me about Bearden's work.

Yes, I quite agree... The Big Bang theory looks pretty flawed at the moment (it doesnt explain some things about our universe), our cosmology theory looks flawed as well, in fact, any theory we come up with is pretty much bound to be flawed until we find the perfect maths system (NOT involving imaginery numbers, e.g. SQRT -1)
However, Conservation of Momentum and Conservation of Energy are the generally accepted laws that we have never ever seen violated...
But then, you say that they arent in this situation..
Well, I have e-mailed my Physics teacher about this, an Oxford graduate, and when he tells me what he thinks (if he finds the time for it), I'll post his reply
But certainly this is out of my depth, you might however, want to join the Alternative energy research project, I can see you contributing quite well.

Though, do know, Fusion will be the main power source, I'd say, for at least 100 years... We're only about 5 years off from making sustaining fusion (those 5 years being the time required to create a plant large enough to sustain it), and once we have it self-sustaining and giving out energy, companies will flock to it like flies to ****! It is very widely considered the next energy source, and after the money we've invested in it, definitely wont be ditched....
I predict that fusion will be the main big thing, and fuel cells for cars/helicopters/poverty-ridden homes in Africa, India, etc

posted on Jun, 29 2004 @ 11:27 AM
When I was looking up Bearden's MEG (motionless electromagnetic generator), to which he has a patent and wants to mass produce, I was curious if was really going to get out.

Then I began thinking if this thing does really work, or any free energy for that matter, imagine the obstacles that would prevent it from actually being produced... ie. Corporations with much to lose from such a device.

I did come across this article which attempts to explain some of the setbacks for marketing the MEG.


posted on Jun, 29 2004 @ 11:29 AM
Brohwa, scientists are humans too. They're not infallible. So it's possible that they would refuse to even review it, like they done so many times in the past. The Wright brothers were flying for five years already and in that time in the scientific journals articles were published stating that man powered flight was impossible.

Simon Newcomb on man powered flight:

"... The limit which the rarity of the air places upon its power of supporting wings, taken in connection with the combined weight of a man and a machine, make a drawback which we should not too hastily assume our ability to overcome. The example of the bird does not prove that man can fly. The hundred and fifty pounds of dead weight which the manager of the machine must add to it over and above that necessary in the bird may well prove an insurmountable obstacle to success."

"The practical difficulties in the way of realizing the movement of such an object are obvious. The aeroplane must have its propellers. These must be driven by an engine with a source of power. Weight is an essential quality of every engine. The propellers must be made of metal, which has its weakness, and which is liable to give way when its speed attains a certain limit. And, granting complete success, imagine the proud possessor of the aeroplane darting through the air at a speed of several hundred feet per second! It is the speed alone that sustains him. Once he slackens his speed, down he begins to fall. He may, indeed, increase the inclination of his aeroplane. Then he increases the resistance necessary to move it. Once he stops he falls a dead mass. How shall he reach the ground without destroying his delicate machinery?"

Source: Newcomb, Simon. Outlook for the Flying Machine. The Independent, October 22, 1903. pp. 2508, 2510-2511.

Simon Newcomb also wrote:

"...The demonstration that no possible combination of known substances, known forms of machinery and known forms of force, can be united in a practical machine by which man shall fly long distances through the air, seems to the writer as complete as it is possible for the demonstration of any physical fact to be."

More Info:

Scientific American saying in 1905 the Wright Brothers were a hoax. do a page search (ctrl-f) on "wright".

And there would be no need for following website to exist if scientists and the establishment were really the way they claim to be:

So arguing that Bearden's work hasn't appeared in the journals is faulty IMO.

posted on Jun, 29 2004 @ 11:35 AM
Edit: nevermind, stupid post

[edit on 29-6-2004 by browha]

posted on Jul, 3 2004 @ 08:21 AM
My physics teacher, who is a decent and honest man, says that anyone who believes in free energy is crazy. He also says the website of the guy who is producing this vacuum energy thing looks like a physicist having a laugh..
Further, Electro-magentic induction only occurs when there is relative motion, e.g. of a magnet...
This device is motionless.. I dont understand how it works.

<< 1   >>

log in