A question for free energy conspiricists

page: 1
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 20 2012 @ 09:39 AM
link   
During the industrial revolution, steam power was the Big Oil of it's day. It was ubiquitous and the key players were immensely wealthy and powerful. People often post on here that the oil industry suppress free energy ideas using their immense wealth and influence, including assassinating people who invent energy devices that could usurp oil as the energy source of the future.

However, if this was the case, then the Steam Cartel of it's day would have suppressed and assassinated those revolutionary experimenters who paved the way for the internal combustion engine. This didn't happen and so the ICB usurped the steam engine as the workhorse of industry. Did Big Steam suppress or assassinate the likes of Henry Ford's ICB car enterprise? No. Many of those Big Steam companies went bust and those who further developed and produced ICBs became wealthy and powerful.

So, how do the "suppression" conspiracy theorists explain the rise in wealth, power and ubiquity of the ICB and the fall into utter desolation and obscurity of steam? Why did Big Water not suppress the early oil pioneers? What about Big Coal? The coal industry was enormous and extremely lucrative during the industrial revolution. Why were the early oil prospectors not assassinated?

Edit: I should add that I am asking for answers supported by evidence, not baseless speculation.
edit on 20-9-2012 by john_bmth because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 20 2012 @ 09:55 AM
link   
Well I think if Oil hadn't been used we would have run out of trees and coal by now to power steam engines.

Oil is so engrained in our civilisation that should it be replaced by anything else (free energy) our civilisation would probably collapse, so it wouldn't be just big oil suppressing other technologies but nearly all governments too.

I believe there is a strong possibility ETs have visited us (looking at all the evidence), and if that is true then there surely must be a free energy to make that possible.......and that is most likely why ET visitation is strongly denied by tptb.

Just my thoughts.



posted on Sep, 20 2012 @ 09:55 AM
link   
reply to post by john_bmth
 


I think it should be considered that the economic climate during the era of transition from steam power to oil and the internal combustion engine was very different. In fact, the world was an entirely different place before and during the industrial revolution.

Suppression may or may not have been possible or even desired at that time.

Also, I don't think anyone will be able to give you the "proof" that you've requested.



posted on Sep, 20 2012 @ 09:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by john_bmth
During the industrial revolution, steam power was the Big Oil of it's day. It was ubiquitous and the key players were immensely wealthy and powerful. People often post on here that the oil industry suppress free energy ideas using their immense wealth and influence, including assassinating people who invent energy devices that could usurp oil as the energy source of the future.

However, if this was the case, then the Steam Cartel of it's day would have suppressed and assassinated those revolutionary experimenters who paved the way for the internal combustion engine. This didn't happen and so the ICB usurped the steam engine as the workhorse of industry. Did Big Steam suppress or assassinate the likes of Henry Ford's ICB car enterprise? No. Many of those Big Steam companies went bust and those who further developed and produced ICBs became wealthy and powerful.

So, how do the "suppression" conspiracy theorists explain the rise in wealth, power and ubiquity of the ICB and the fall into utter desolation and obscurity of steam? Why did Big Water not suppress the early oil pioneers? What about Big Coal? The coal industry was enormous and extremely lucrative during the industrial revolution. Why were the early oil prospectors not assassinated?

Edit: I should add that I am asking for answers supported by evidence, not baseless speculation.
edit on 20-9-2012 by john_bmth because: (no reason given)



You are asking for evidences of situations that did not happen? Like "we, the big fat coal company hereby declare that we will never kill anyone for building a better machine than ours"?

Unlikely. I even have no idea why some company should present or even store such evidences. It seems illogical at least.



posted on Sep, 20 2012 @ 09:58 AM
link   
reply to post by john_bmth
 


I would think the answers were obvious enough, but hear goes.

Replacing steam with oil was easy, it is the same thing only a different energy source.

Free energy, breaks the chain, and frees everyone from having to rely on them forever, thus destroying their choke hold on the populous. Not to mention, steam power was not controlled exclusively by a few, anyone could make a boiler at home, and feed it with wood. Too many people were doing this, which is why they wanted to switch to oil, as maing the extremely complex internal combustion engine is not easy, and requires extremes of machining tolerances that cannont be accomplished by 99.99999% of people at home. Thus they have their monopoly, and hold it tight.

Your summation isnt even apples to oranges, it is apples to rocks. In no way even comparable. I dont see anyone making an internal combustion engine in their garage from spare parts out of the junk pile, I have made a steam engine at home in the garage out of spare parts from the junk pile! it isnt even hard, the only safety you need is a check valve to keep the boiler from exploding from to much pressure.



posted on Sep, 20 2012 @ 10:00 AM
link   
reply to post by InTheFlesh1980
 

Suppression would have been far, far easier as there were very few legal paths (if any) for challenging corporate power in those days. Corporations routinely got away with literally murder and corruption was all part of the political system. Wealthy industrialists wielded far more unaccountable power compared to today. Couple this with limited long distance communication and insular nature of communities and you have the perfect conditions for suppression.
edit on 20-9-2012 by john_bmth because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 20 2012 @ 10:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by inverslyproportional
reply to post by john_bmth
 


I would think the answers were obvious enough, but hear goes.

Replacing steam with oil was easy, it is the same thing only a different energy source.

Free energy, breaks the chain, and frees everyone from having to rely on them forever, thus destroying their choke hold on the populous. Not to mention, steam power was not controlled exclusively by a few, anyone could make a boiler at home, and feed it with wood. Too many people were doing this, which is why they wanted to switch to oil, as maing the extremely complex internal combustion engine is not easy, and requires extremes of machining tolerances that cannont be accomplished by 99.99999% of people at home. Thus they have their monopoly, and hold it tight.

Your summation isnt even apples to oranges, it is apples to rocks. In no way even comparable. I dont see anyone making an internal combustion engine in their garage from spare parts out of the junk pile, I have made a steam engine at home in the garage out of spare parts from the junk pile! it isnt even hard, the only safety you need is a check valve to keep the boiler from exploding from to much pressure.

The power completely shifted from one industry to the other. Wealth was created and destroyed for the usurper and incumbent. The "chain" was completely "broken" for Big Steam so your argument of apples and oranges carries no weight.



posted on Sep, 20 2012 @ 10:03 AM
link   
reply to post by ManFromEurope
 


I'm asking for evidence for any defence made. Comprendé?



posted on Sep, 20 2012 @ 10:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by john_bmth
reply to post by InTheFlesh1980
 

Suppression would have been far, far easier as there were very few legal paths (if any) for challenging corporate power in those days. Corporations routinely got away with literally murder and corruption was all part of the political system. Wealthy industrialists wielded far more unaccountable power compared to today.


I would tend to agree with your reasoning regarding the leeway for surreptitious business practices in a less regulated climate; however, for the record you requested evidence as opposed to speculation, and this assertion is speculation on both our parts.



posted on Sep, 20 2012 @ 10:10 AM
link   
reply to post by InTheFlesh1980
 

It's not speculation on my part. Look into labour laws, corporate laws and civil rights from that era. The legal landscape was completely different back then.



posted on Sep, 20 2012 @ 10:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by InTheFlesh1980
reply to post by john_bmth
 


I think it should be considered that the economic climate during the era of transition from steam power to oil and the internal combustion engine was very different. In fact, the world was an entirely different place before and during the industrial revolution.

Suppression may or may not have been possible or even desired at that time.

Also, I don't think anyone will be able to give you the "proof" that you've requested.


What was the economic climate during the Spanish Inquisition?



posted on Sep, 20 2012 @ 10:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by inverslyproportional
reply to post by john_bmth
 


I would think the answers were obvious enough, but hear goes.

Replacing steam with oil was easy, it is the same thing only a different energy source.

Free energy, breaks the chain, and frees everyone from having to rely on them forever, thus destroying their choke hold on the populous. Not to mention, steam power was not controlled exclusively by a few, anyone could make a boiler at home, and feed it with wood. Too many people were doing this, which is why they wanted to switch to oil, as maing the extremely complex internal combustion engine is not easy, and requires extremes of machining tolerances that cannont be accomplished by 99.99999% of people at home. Thus they have their monopoly, and hold it tight.

Your summation isnt even apples to oranges, it is apples to rocks. In no way even comparable. I dont see anyone making an internal combustion engine in their garage from spare parts out of the junk pile, I have made a steam engine at home in the garage out of spare parts from the junk pile! it isnt even hard, the only safety you need is a check valve to keep the boiler from exploding from to much pressure.


Tell me exactly what is free in life? Anything? 99% of us pay for water... Yet supposedly something that costs little or nothing to make is going to be free? When stuff falling from the sky isnt?

Energy production barely registers pennies and cents for kWH, so how much cheaper is it going to be? And as if no one wants to see the profit that could be realized if it was cheaper or free... (Energy)

In other words, not just "Big Oil" but every single person down the line that incorporates energy costs into their product. Tell me, did anyone give you a refund or drop their prices lately when energy fluctuated and was down in price for a period? No... Doubtful... Unless there was a regulation that forced them too....



posted on Sep, 20 2012 @ 10:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by john_bmth
reply to post by ManFromEurope
 


I'm asking for evidence for any defence made. Comprendé?


Man, you are stubborn, asking for evidence without presenting anything but your own logic loop. The point that I believe inverslyproportional touched on, is that both coal and oil are centralized energy, while free energy/renewable energies are decentralized technologies, thus the corporate monopoly on the production of energy is threatened. Evidence?





Which option requires more corporate machinery?



posted on Sep, 20 2012 @ 10:46 AM
link   
reply to post by PadawanGandalf
 


The point you again seem to be missing is it doesn't matter one iota where the power balance shifted, be it from steam industry to petroleum industry or petroleum industry to decentralized personal ownership, the fact is the power did indeed shift. So again, repeating myself, why was this shift strangely possible yet the shift to decentralized/whatever industry isn't?


Which option requires more corporate machinery?

This is nothing but baseless speculation and does not in any way change the argument one bit. Explain how the steam industry evaporated. Explain how powerful industrialists went out of business. Explain why they couldn't suppress new power sources.
edit on 20-9-2012 by john_bmth because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 20 2012 @ 10:47 AM
link   
One of the first conspiracies dealing with free energy has got to be the first iteration of the Model T, and the rumor that the engine was also capable of running on magnets alone. It has been many years since I researched this conspiracy, but I'll see if I can dig it up. Maybe someone can beat me to it.

Gist of the story is that Mr. Ford was getting all sorts of pressure from the oil companies, for whatever reason. He retaliated by building the first versions of Model T's with the future-ability to run on magnets alone. Supposedly all an owner had to do was insert a certain shape magnet in the engine and the engine would run without a drop of gasoline and make a fair amount of HP, certainly enough to drive the car. The oil companies let him get his way and the engines ran on gas because of it. It goes deeper though. Later, a group of people went through this info and wanted to try and recreate the magnet design, and use it. Word got out and these people met an unfortunate "accident" while on-route.

I guess what I'm saying is that, if this is true, then even very early on there was an incredible free-energy conspiracy that harkens back to the beginning of it all.



posted on Sep, 20 2012 @ 10:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by john_bmth
During the industrial revolution, steam power was the Big Oil of it's day. It was ubiquitous and the key players were immensely wealthy and powerful. People often post on here that the oil industry suppress free energy ideas using their immense wealth and influence, including assassinating people who invent energy devices that could usurp oil as the energy source of the future.

However, if this was the case, then the Steam Cartel of it's day would have suppressed and assassinated those revolutionary experimenters who paved the way for the internal combustion engine.


This is an assumption you're leaping to. You have to take into account they didn't have the world banking cartel like they have now pulling everyone's strings. They didn't have they type of consolidated power and influence they have today. Plus Not everyone was as dependent on steam power as they are on oil today. After oil came nuclear, I'm sure the oil gurus fought against that too. In fact, I believe they still are to an extent through lobbyist.


This didn't happen and so the ICB usurped the steam engine as the workhorse of industry. Did Big Steam suppress or assassinate the likes of Henry Ford's ICB car enterprise? No. Many of those Big Steam companies went bust and those who further developed and produced ICBs became wealthy and powerful.

So, how do the "suppression" conspiracy theorists explain the rise in wealth, power and ubiquity of the ICB and the fall into utter desolation and obscurity of steam? Why did Big Water not suppress the early oil pioneers? What about Big Coal? The coal industry was enormous and extremely lucrative during the industrial revolution. Why were the early oil prospectors not assassinated?

Edit: I should add that I am asking for answers supported by evidence, not baseless speculation.
edit on 20-9-2012 by john_bmth because: (no reason given)


My same answer above goes for the rest of your post. Even if you have coal, or nuclear, or wind power, or water power etc, all these are still largely dependent on oil and oil products, so they are less of a threat. But, if you had free energy for the masses, only It, would be a game changer that may not require any oil at all depending on your designs. This is what Big Oil is afraid of. Free Energy could wipe them out where nothing else could before.

I don't have any facts to back this up ( none needed, simple common sense will do it) but since your questions were based in speculation, I deem these answers good enough for this post.
edit on 20-9-2012 by JohnPhoenix because: sp



posted on Sep, 20 2012 @ 06:07 PM
link   
reply to post by PadawanGandalf


Man, you are stubborn, asking for evidence without presenting anything but your own logic loop. The point that I believe inverslyproportional touched on, is that both coal and oil are centralized energy, while free energy/renewable energies are decentralized technologies, thus the corporate monopoly on the production of energy is threatened. Evidence?


 


Decentralized heating is one of the oldest things in human history. It came about with some wood in the fire and then eventually used cast iron ovens/fireplaces, stone fireplaces and the fancy axes and whatnot that it took to cut the wood.

Oh but people still have to pay for the stone work, for the ovens, etc.

What makes you think some technology that delivers "free" energy isn't going to need any components built by other people?

Last quote I had a stone fireplace was damn expensive...
edit on 20-9-2012 by boncho because: (no reason given)


XL5

posted on Sep, 20 2012 @ 06:53 PM
link   
I think the missing part is that, on the one side we have energy industry and the other we have none to very little. The wood/steam industry workers could move into the oil industry, with free energy, you make the device once and the energy is there (some how) and the only consumable is any parts that break. Thats also the reason I think they are sitting on amazing battery technology, electric cars could be made that can outlast an engine and if it were not for expensive batteries, we would all be driving electric cars. Sure the powerplants would still be running, but a large chunk of the oil and car repair industry would not.

That said, tapes beat records (mostly), CD's beat tapes, mp3's beat CD's and yet the ability to copy music is being suppressed today when for the longest time, it was not or at least not anywhere near as much.



posted on Sep, 20 2012 @ 07:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by XL5
I think the missing part is that, on the one side we have energy industry and the other we have none to very little. The wood/steam industry workers could move into the oil industry, with free energy, you make the device once and the energy is there (some how) and the only consumable is any parts that break. Thats also the reason I think they are sitting on amazing battery technology, electric cars could be made that can outlast an engine and if it were not for expensive batteries, we would all be driving electric cars. Sure the powerplants would still be running, but a large chunk of the oil and car repair industry would not.

That said, tapes beat records (mostly), CD's beat tapes, mp3's beat CD's and yet the ability to copy music is being suppressed today when for the longest time, it was not or at least not anywhere near as much.



Look how well suppression is working in the music industry...



The thing you fail to realize is that powerful people from any industry can switch to another at the drop of a hat. The days of family owned empires in one specific field are long over. Powerful people shift their interests many times over throughout the course of a lifetime. T Boone Pickens is a good example because he's had his hands in everything. Any major hedge fund, financier, or other are examples because they go where the most profit can be earned. There are oil companies that have taken on many different sub-industries depending on market forces, but I assure energy production isn't even the main driver of the oil industry:


The largest volume products of the industry are fuel oil and gasoline (petrol). Petroleum (oil) is also the raw material for many chemical products, including pharmaceuticals, solvents, fertilizers, pesticides, and plastics. The industry is usually divided into three major components: upstream, midstream and downstream. Midstream operations are usually included in the downstream category.


en.wikipedia.org...

Just take a look at CEO's that have crossed through many different sectors and ask yourself if you really believe some oil Oligarch is sitting around shivering over "free energy"

They aren't, because it isn't a reality. And unfortunately, people that bitch about big oil just have absolutely no clue how the world works, how industry works, or how much of anything works.

There are three camps, some in on a scam, some with altruistic/honest intentions who will probably come to regret putting faith into the idea, and then the morons who fall for things unproven.



posted on Sep, 20 2012 @ 08:25 PM
link   
reply to post by john_bmth
 


Well it's like this .... someone invented the thermal couple and they discovered they could produce enough electricity from the lost energy (heat) together with a generator driven by the engine ... to create enough steam not only to power the engine, but enough to do other work also......so it had to go......no money in it for them.


The water can be condensed and reused ..... you do know about thermal couple type devices and temperature difference ..........





new topics
top topics
 
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join