Why Aren't Free Energy Devices on the Market?

page: 6
11
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 09:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by alfa1

Originally posted by Mary Rose
What else is there?



5. They dont exist.


Sure they do! Here is a light that runs off of Gravity. It can charge batteries too and is being re-designed to be more efficient. Cost only 10 bucks! Now before anyone says that's not the same as free energy, I disagree. It's a form of energy that won't ever get used up and is free and accessible to all. Good enough for me.

phys.org...




posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 09:48 PM
link   
reply to post by JohnPhoenix
 


Very very neat! Good find.
Heh surely someone is going to claim that the material wear and tear of such a device, or the kinetic energy you use to lift it back up once it's exhausted it's 30 minute supply makes this just an ingenious invention and not a free energy device. Sure, I'll give them that... but I'm with you on it, IMO it's free energy.



posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 09:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by hellobruce

Originally posted by Mary Rose
Assuming the hypothetical that free energy does not violate actual natural law, why don't we have working devices on the market by now?


Because none of them work, and they do violate actual natural law.


There is no such thing as violating an actual law of Physics. Physical "Laws" are simply generalizations of what is normally observed under certain circumstances. These are not set in stone - that definition of a "law" is a misunderstanding of the premise. If you change enough variables to make the thing work - and many do work, it's not because the are violating a physics law, it's because they are working off of principles that are just not very well understood. False scientists love to claim you can't do that because it would break a law of physics when in reality this can never be the case by it's very definition. Instead of claiming these things must not really work because we know some do - you have to come up with an explanation for why they are working understand at the same time why they don't contradict with what is normally observed under your older set of certain circumstances.



posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 10:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by JohnPhoenix
Sure they do! Here is a light that runs off of Gravity.


here we have whole towns and industries running of gravity.... It is commonly known as hydro electricity - but according to you that is also free energy....
edit on 25-12-2012 by hellobruce because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 11:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by hellobruce

Originally posted by JohnPhoenix
Sure they do! Here is a light that runs off of Gravity.


here we have whole towns and industries running of gravity.... It is commonly known as hydro electricity - but according to you that is also free energy....
edit on 25-12-2012 by hellobruce because: (no reason given)


Of course the upshot to my gravity light as opposed to hydro generator systems that run cities is that you buy it once and have free light for life. With the hydro plant you have to keep paying for it month after month. Hydro electricity IS free energy only those who make the plants choose to charge for it to make money for themselves. This need not be at all and should be an illegal practice such as charging for food shelter and basic clothing should be illegal IMO.



posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 11:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by JohnPhoenix
should be an illegal practice such as charging for food shelter and basic clothing should be illegal IMO.


So you expect people to get free housing, food and clothing.... just who produces that stuff?



posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 11:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by hellobruce

Originally posted by JohnPhoenix
should be an illegal practice such as charging for food shelter and basic clothing should be illegal IMO.


So you expect people to get free housing, food and clothing.... just who produces that stuff?


Yes, I expect this. It is the only rational humane way to live.

And that therein is The problem. No one produces these in mass for the masses because we live under systems that are not conducive to true freedom and equality for mankind. These systems say you have to be a consumer and pay with money - someone must to at the top and keep the people at the bottom dependent on such systems. This is flawed. This allows for control of the masses and the ability to get rich off of them for ones personal gain. This is also the reason we don't have free energy devices - not because they are not possible but because it would threaten to tear down those who control the masses and make them equal to all of us.

Some small groups do live in such ways where they have free food shelter and clothing - everyone pitches in to help grow, build and create for the community as a whole and they share these things willingly. In these communities they have less crime, and the people are generally happier.



posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 11:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by hellobruce

Originally posted by pheonix358
Use the electricity to hydrolyze water, breaking it up into H2 and O2.


This is one of the funniest things about people pushing this "free energy" nonsense, they lack even a simple understanding of how things work.

As in this case, when you electrolyse water you do not get H2 O2....



This is yet another example of the detractors always trying to score points and making silly assertions. The next thing you will say is that when you break up water you get H2 and a single O. Well, that just goes to show your level of knowledge that is sadly lacking. The oxygen atoms will combine to form O2. Since we do not need the Oxygen, we can release it to the atmosphere.

Since we get twice as much Hydrogen as we do oxygen, and we do not need the Oxygen, we just collect the hydrogen.

If this is all you have to offer, if this is the best you have left then your argumentative stance has little left to offer.

P



posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 11:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Mary Rose
 


They couldn't keep the atom bomb a secret, they sure couldn't keep a free energy device secret either.

And you can't defy the laws of physics. In order to make energy you have to put in work.

Sorry about that.



posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 11:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by hellobruce

Originally posted by JohnPhoenix
Sure they do! Here is a light that runs off of Gravity.


here we have whole towns and industries running of gravity.... It is commonly known as hydro electricity - but according to you that is also free energy....
edit on 25-12-2012 by hellobruce because: (no reason given)


Brings up a very good point! Free energy in the context of a paradigm changing scenario can't come in the form of a massive centralized system that services millions of people. Even if your only paying for the infrastructure and equipment (construction, concrete, turbine wear & tear, and all the electrical grid infrastructure), your still paying for it, and rightly so too.
IMO a genuine free energy device would be point of use, minimal wear & tear, little to NO fuel requirement and easily adapted to a multitude of existing devices. Something like a magic box. After fresh water availability, the only thing left would be a genuine LED light replacement for high intensity discharge lights and we are on our way to decentralizing basic human needs



Originally posted by intrptr
reply to post by Mary Rose
 


They couldn't keep the atom bomb a secret, they sure couldn't keep a free energy device secret either.
And you can't defy the laws of physics. In order to make energy you have to put in work.
Sorry about that.


IMO the atom bomb is hardy a good example "their" inability to keep secrets... In fact, I'd say they are pretty good at keeping secrets. The UFO phenomenon for example! With 1000s of people reporting similar sightings, Ancient Aliens on the History channel and testimonies from government officials.. And yet, the MSM still doesn't consider it worthy of real news. It almost shows that "they" don't need to keep the secret because as long as people have the mindset of "Well.. If there was truly something to is, CNN or the Economist (take your pick) would do a report on it," they can keep testing their insane acceleration, 90 degree aerial turn aircraft without public outcry.
On that note, it's naive to think we are bound to the traditional laws of physics. Free energy devices could be what quantum physics was to Newtonian physics.
edit on 26-12-2012 by Qubert because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 26 2012 @ 12:07 AM
link   
reply to post by JohnPhoenix
 


A light source that costs 10 dollars (expected) depends on a hanging bag of rocks and must be reset every half hour.

Like a coo coo clock the weights pull slowly to the floor turning a mini generator until the weight touches the floor and the light goes out. Then its dark and someone needs to reset the mechanism in the dark.

Its light, not "energy" and it still isn't "free".



posted on Dec, 26 2012 @ 12:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by mysterioustranger
Money. The "Powers that be". Hidden Agendas. Big Business...all of them are the reasons we dont have :

1. "Free Energy" (There exists more than a proven few)
2. Cars that run on water.
3. 100+ miles to the gallon/literof gas/petrol

As long as politics and greed run our lives, we wont get them anytime soon.

Nicola Tesla had the right-working idea for free energy...all along.

Thanks for the thread!


Tesla had a wireless distribution patent and a generator patent but neither of these is "Free Energy".

Our whole electrical generation system (not free) is his most famous invention.

Perpetual motion does exist (The Earth is in orbit around the Sun and this is, essentially, perpetual as it is frictionless).

However, when you take some energy away from a perpetual motion system and use it for something, the perpetual motion bit stops as the energy is lost.

edit on 26/12/2012 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 26 2012 @ 01:15 AM
link   
Its a pretty easy question. Free energy isn't as lucrative as oil/natural gas/electricity.



posted on Dec, 26 2012 @ 01:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by intrptr
And you can't defy the laws of physics. In order to make energy you have to put in work.


Oh, there's work involved, alright. Tons of work in figuring out how to tap into the aether. Brainpower goes into it. And blood, sweat, and tears.



posted on Dec, 26 2012 @ 01:41 AM
link   
And here we go again..
The mear definition of "FREE" is flawed.
The debunker says "free" must be a form
of NON input and 100% OUTPUT..

IMHO, thats not at all what its all about.
Its about getting energy without having
to PAY for it. A device i can have in my
home, that produces energy that i need.

I totaly understan that i´ll have to pay
SOMETHING, but the anual fees shouldnt
be...



posted on Dec, 26 2012 @ 01:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Qubert
 

The only trouble I have with the concept is the word "free".

And I agree with you about the MSM and UFO's. But that is a different subject.



posted on Dec, 26 2012 @ 01:49 AM
link   
The sun is free. It warms us. lights our path and makes things grow.
The wind is free. It moves sails, turns windmills, and cools us.
Running water and waves are free. They turn water wheels and mills.

All these used to be used everywhere on the planet. Then men invented the internal combustion engine, the electric generator and nuclear power.

Since we have become dependent upon these wall switch technologies, we have forgotten how to make do with the abundant "alternatives".



posted on Dec, 26 2012 @ 01:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Mary Rose
 


And blood, sweat, and tears.

Those are still free. From where I am sitting anyway. I make do with those three things in exchange for room and board. So you could say... I live for free.



posted on Dec, 26 2012 @ 02:11 AM
link   
reply to post by intrptr
 


You missed my point entirely. Blood, sweat, and tears is referring to the sacrifice our inventors have made having their labs being ransacked and sometimes their lives taken from them.



posted on Dec, 26 2012 @ 02:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ryanssuperman
Its a pretty easy question. Free energy isn't as lucrative as oil/natural gas/electricity.

Why not? If I owned a power generation company and I had this technology that could generate power indefinitely without input fuels like coal, natural gas etc., why would I not employ this technology which increases my profits, since I no longer have to pay for the inputs?

If you apply common sense, you would see that any free energy technology, if it exists, would be lapped up by the energy industry and not suppressed.





top topics
 
11
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join