Multiple Scientists Confirm The Reality of Free Energy – Here’s The Proof


advertisement - learn more

free energy1Who is benefiting from suppressing scientific research? Whose power and wealth is threatened by access to clean and free energy? Who has the desire to create a system where so few have so much, and so many have so little?

It’s become extremely obvious, especially within the past few years, that Earth’s dependence on fossil fuels is not needed at all. Yet we continue to create war, destroy the environment and harm mother Earth so we can continue using the same old techniques that generate trillions of dollars for those at the top of the energy industry. Corporate media continues to push the idea that we are in an energy crisis, that we are approaching a severe problem due to a lack of resources.  It’s funny how the same group of shareholders that own the energy industry also own corporate media. This seems to be both another fear tactic and another excuse to create conflict. How can there be a lack of resources when we have systems that can provide energy without any external input? This means that these systems could run for infinity and provide energy to the entire planet without burning fossil fuels. This would eliminate a large portion of the ‘bills’ you pay to live, and reduce the harmful effect we are having on Earth and her environment. Even if you don’t believe in the concept of free energy (also known as zero-point energy), we have multiple clean energy sources that render the entire energy industry obsolete. This article however will focus mainly on the concept of free energy which has been proven time and time again by researchers all across the world who have conducted several experiments and published their work multiple times. A portion of this vast amount of research will be presented in this paper.

These concepts have been proven in hundreds of laboratories all over the world, yet never see the light of day. If the new energy technologies were set free world wide the change would be profound. It would affect everybody, it would be applicable everywhere. These technologies are absolutely the most important thing that have happened in the history of the world.   – Dr. Brian O’Leary, Former NASA Astronaut and Princeton Physics Professor.

The Research

These concepts are currently being discussed at The Breakthrough Energy Movement Conference.

The Casimir Effect is a proven example of free energy that cannot be debunked. The Casimir Effect illustrates zero point or vacuum state energy, which predicts that two metal plates close together attract each other due to an imbalance in the quantum fluctuations(0)(8). You can see a visual demonstration of this concept here. The implications of this are far reaching and have been written about extensively within theoretical physics by researchers all over the world. Today, we are beginning to see that these concepts are not just theoretical, but instead very practical and simply very suppressed.

Vacuums generally are thought to be voids, but Hendrik Casimir believed these pockets of nothing do indeed contain fluctuations of electromagnetic waves. He suggested that two metal plates held apart in a vacuum could trap the waves, creating vacuum energy that could attract or repel the plates. As the boundaries of a region move, the variation in vacuum energy (zero-point energy) leads to the Casimir effect. Recent research done at Harvard University, and Vrije University in Amsterdam and elsewhere has proved the Casimir effect correct (7).

A paper published in the Journal Foundations of Physics Letters, in August 2001, Volume 14, Issue 4 shows that the principles of general relativity can be used to explain the principles of the motionless electromagnetic generator (MEG)(1). This device takes electromagnetic energy from curved space-time and outputs about twenty times more energy than inputted. The fact that these machines exist is astonishing, it’s even more astonishing that these machines are not implemented worldwide right now. It would completely wipe out the entire energy industry, nobody would have to pay bills and it would eradicate poverty at an exponential rate. This paper demonstrates that electromagnetic energy can be extracted from the vacuum and used to power working devices such as the MEG used in the experiment. The paper goes on to emphasize how these devices are reproducible and repeatable.

The results of this research have been used by numerous scientists all over the world. One of the many examples is a paper written by Theodor C. Loder, III, Professor Emeritus at the Institute for the Study of Earth, Oceans and Space at the University of New Hampshire. He outlined the importance of these concepts in his paper titled Space and Terrestrial Transportation and Energy Technologies For The 21st Century (2).

There is significant evidence that scientists since Tesla have known about this energy, but that its existence and potential use has been discouraged and indeed suppressed over the past half century or more (2) – Dr. Theodor C. Loder III

Harold E. Puthoff, an American Physicist and Ph.D. from Stanford University, as a researcher at the institute for Advanced Studies at Austin, Texas published a paper in the journal Physical Review A, atomic, molecular and optical physics titled “Gravity as a zero-point-fluctuation force(3)” . His paper proposed a suggestive model in which gravity is not a separately existing fundamental force, but is rather an induced effect associated with zero-point fluctuations of the vacuum, as illustrated by the Casimir force. This is the same professor that had close connections with Department of Defense initiated research in regards to remote viewing. The findings of this research are highly classified, and the program was instantly shut down not longer after its initiation (4).

Another astonishing paper titled “Extracting energy and heat from the vacuum,” by the same researchers, this time in conjunction with Daniel C. Cole, Ph.D. and Associate Professor at Boston University in the Department of Mechanical Engineering was published in the same journal (5).

Relatively recent proposals have been made in the literature for extracting energy and heat from electromagnetic zero-point radiation via the use of the Casimir force. The basic thermodynamics involved in these proposals is analyzed and clarified here, with the conclusion that yes, in principle, these proposals are correct (5).

Furthermore, a paper in the journal Physical Review A, Puthoff  titled “Source of vacuum electromagnetic zero-point energy (6),” Puthoff describes how nature provides us with two alternatives for the origin of electromagnetic zero-point energy. One of them is generation by the quantum fluctuation motion of charged particles that constitute matter. His research shows that particle motion generates the zero-point energy spectrum, in the form of a self-regenerating cosmological feedback cycle.

Before commenting on the article, please read the article, look at the sources and watch the video. Many of your questions can be answered there. We come across many who are quick to comment without examining the information presented. This is a clip from the documentary Thrive, you can view the full documentary by clicking on the title. 

We’ve had major military people at great risks to themselves say yes these things are real. Why do you think the military industrial complex doesn’t want that statement to be made, because you start thinking about what kind of technology is behind that, that’s the bottom line.  – Adam Trombly, Physicist, Inventor

As illustrated multiple times above, the energy these systems use is extracted from the fabric of the space around us. That means it cannot be metered, which creates a threat to the largest industry on the planet, energy. An industry that is partly responsible for the destruction of our planet, and an industry that rakes in hundreds of trillions of dollars every year. No blame is to be given, only a realization is to be made that we have the power to change this anytime we choose. These technologies would completely change everything, but it’s important to remember that operating technology depends on what level of consciousness the operators are operating it at. Is the human race ready for such a transformation? Nothing can work unless the consciousness behind it comes from a place of love, peace, co-operation and understanding. The desire for the benefit of all beings on the planet would be the driving force for the release of these technologies.

These technologies are locked up in black budget projects, it would take an act of God to ever get them out to benifit humanity (2) – Ben Rich, Former Director of Lockheed’s Skunkworks Division

I hope I’ve provided enough information here for those interested in furthering their research on the subject. There is a lot to this technology, and it branches into many other areas from ancient history to sacred geometry and all the way to UFOs. The technology described in this paper is similar to what Dr. O’Leary states here with regards to propulsion systems and an isolated field of energy.  For more on this subject, please visit our exopolitics section under the alternative news tab as it does correlate with the technology of anti-gravity and free energy.

Collective Evolution has covered this topic before. We’ve demonstrated the reality of the Searl Effect Generator.

We’ve also written about the Free Energy Devices.

This article was simply to provide you with more information and research to show you just how applicable these concepts are and the tremendous implications they can have.

Here is some more information:

If you haven’t heard of the QEG (Quantum Energy Generator) then this is going to be a nice surprise for you. This device is based off of Tesla’s work where he built a resonance generator that required 1KW input to produce 10KW output. This device works in the same way and was built after his patents were released into the public domain. Years of testing and adjusting was done to make the device possible and available for others to build. This new device will require 1KW of input power to get the core resonance up and then after it is producing 10KW it can be unplugged and an inverter is attached so no input power will be required.

Yes, this means what it is saying, after a short period of input power, NO INPUT will be needed to supply 10KW of power. As stated by HopeGirl who released the plans open source to the public “The QEG belongs to humanity now. Many will make further improvements and we will all co-develop this practical bridge technology together.” Beautiful words as this world doesn’t need to be built off of money, greed, patents, ownership and power. These are archaic egoic concepts that we can evolve out of quite effortlessly.

Have a look at the moving video below as this community in Morocco built the working device in only 3 days. This video is of them turning on the device for the first time. You are seeing just the beginning of this device as more tweaks will be made in the coming days to increase the output power.

“ Message to the World: “If we can get a QEG up and running in Morocco, we can do it anywhere!”
— Tomas Qubeck – New Earth Heartbeat

This device has also been built in Taiwan and more teams are building them in other areas of the world. 

Here are the open source plans for the device.

Sources:

(o) http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v457/n7226/edsumm/e090108-01.html

(1) http://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A%3A1012369318404

(2) http://www.disclosureproject.org/docs/pdf/OutsideTheBox-TedLoderPaper.pdf

(3)http://pra.aps.org/abstract/PRA/v39/i5/p2333_1

(4) http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_10_1_puthoff.pdf

(5) http://pre.aps.org/abstract/PRE/v48/i2/p1562_1

(6) http://pra.aps.org/abstract/PRA/v40/i9/p4857_1

(7) http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=darpa-casimir-effect-research

(8) http://physics.aps.org/story/v2/st28


Take The 30 Days of YOU Challenge!

Take the free 30 Days of You Challenge and discover more about your heart, mind and soul.

There are powerful benefits associated with taking time to relax, meditate, do something you love, journal, reflect or get started on a new hobby, but that means dedicating YOU time for it.

This challenge will help you set out on a journey to getting powerful habits started that can transform your life.

Join the free challenge and get the full guidelines on how to do it as well as support throughout the challenge.

Click Here!

advertisement - learn more

More From 'Energy'

CE provides a space for free thinkers to explore and discuss new, alternative information and ideas. The goal? Question everything, think differently, spread love and live a joy filled life.

  1. tom

    Where are the patents?

    Reply
    • - Collective Evolution
    • - Collective Evolution

      patents for these machines are available :) If you read Loder’s paper he provides a few links to some patents. It’s important to note that the US usually blocks patents with the title “free energy” in them….so they are very hard to find. If you read the article and watched the video they mention why :)

      • tom

        For those unfamiliar with thermodynamics, the first law says you don’t get something for nothing, and the second states that what you do get comes at great cost.

        Perpetual motion, aka ‘free energy’ is everyone’s dream: The first such patent application was a water wheel that pumped water up to the reservoir pond while grinding grain. It failed.

        The US patent office no longer accepts applications unless accompanied by a working model, which has yet to happen.

        I read the articles Arjun referenced and tracked down Seversky’s patent here: http://www.google.com/patents/US3130945 It has nothing to do with free energy, it has to do with electrodynamics and efficiency, a total different concept from free energy. There is no mention of a working model or gravity in seversky’s patent. It apparently fell by the wayside because yes, electrodynamics works, but apparently it isn’t scalable to usable size, mostly because the power supplies required are in the magawatt range and are neither light nor efficient.

        Tom Edison championed the electric car and installed charging stations along popular routes. It failed because recharging took so long that a three hour trip in a Ford took days in an Edison. That problem has dogged electric vehicles since.

        In Oct ’11 the Pipistrel won a cash award for flying a 100 nm course at 100 mph using batteries. The industry was abuzz with the possibilities and prognostications, but the same problem that stopped Edison stops the Pipistrel from gaining traction as a practical machine – charging: Both in cost and time.

        As the 1953 Townsend Brown article describes, many pin their hopes on a super-capacitor that can charge instantly but discharge like a battery. It works on a small scale – RC modelers use such super-caps to great success, and there was an electrolytic breakthru about ten years ago that increased super-cap power densities ten fold with the promise of million-fold increase in a ‘short time.’ So far it hasn’t happened.

        As a side note, electric vehicle weight remains the same from full charge to empty while the power output decreases with time. A hydrocarbon-powered vehicle gets lighter as fuel burns while power output remains constant and predictable until exhausted – a desirable trait in all forms of transportation and energy storage.

        John Park’s book ‘VooDoo Science’ describes ‘perpetual motion’ purveyors and how once a generation someone comes forth with a claim of free energy that violate the laws of thermodynamics, gets money from investors and disappears. They also operate under the cloak of conspiracy theories that ‘(fill in the blank) wants him to fail’ so failure is predictable, but it isn’t his fault. Google Joe Newman for a classic example.

        Someone will attack me with the conspiracy argument: Fire away. Before doing so consider this: The driving force in manufacturing is market share: Apple, Toyota, Dell, Chevy, Boeing, airbus all vie for it. In the case of commercial aircraft, efficiency is everything; weight and drag are the enemies while fuel consumption per butt/seat/mile is a close third. The new B787 is all electric, doing away with hydraulic and pneumatic systems because batteries, electric generators and motor efficiency have improved greatly and lost a lot of weight over the last 25 years. That’s weight the operator doesn’t have to take flying every day. But it still requires engine power to run the systems. if free energy machines were really available they’d be in the B787, ipad, Chevy Volt and Prius.

        Reply
        • Mike

          If there were a battery station on every corner like gas stations are, Edison could have pulled in, disconnected his battery pack and installed a newly charged set.
          90% of the average person’s daily driving is well within the capacities of today’s battery’s range (BTW, if you read through industry/trade magazines from early last century, you will see that electric automobiles were attaining 100 mile ranges by the 1920’s).
          Yes, you may have to drive the wife’s gas-guzzler, or rent a car for the weekend to go to Grandma’s for Thanksgiving, or for trips “up North”, but for the rest of the year the average commuter would be saving themselves real money, not to mention all of the OTHER benefits electric autos would contribute (and don’t get into the charging sources, we both know that wind and solar systems, given fair competition, would compete with nuclear and coal generators).

          Reply
          • tom

            Mike said: (and don’t get into the charging sources, we both know that wind and solar systems, given fair competition, would compete with nuclear and coal generators).

            Mike, Come to reality, it’s at your power manager’s console. Most electric car owners charge the car in the garage after work after the sun disappeared over yonder horizon and the wind calms. Hence, no solar and little wind. The grid manager uses gas, nukes, hydro and coal to assume the load they might have been producing in daylight. The only saving grace is if you have a smart meter, which reports that you charged the car after peak industrial hours and deserve a break from daytime rates. The tinfoil-hat crowd eschew smart meters for conspiracy reasons. How does the power manager’s job jive with your comment?

            Reply
        • Kasper

          “The US patent office no longer accepts applications unless accompanied by a working model, which has yet to happen.”
          – Obviously you haven’t heard of Stanley Meyer..

          Reply
        • What a fantastic response, more of this.

          Reply
        • - Collective Evolution

          Yes, I understand the first law of thermodynamics. Free energy devices do not get something from nothing, they take from what is there available to it, nothing is empty space! It’s all energy. Perpetual motion has been proven time and time again, I do not think you looked at the sources and watched the video. If you did, could you please be a little more specific as to where you disagree?

          Working models have been demonstrated time and time again, the reason why they do not accept patents is because there is a high level of suppression when it comes to these things. There is evidence of ..do you mean anti gravity?

          I don’t think anybody will attack you, it’s just difficult because there is just an overwhelming amount of evidence that illustrates these things are real. Maybe one day we can put out a video and show you, but for now this type of information presented is all we have :)

          Thanks for reading!

  2. There are some truly excellent blogs on this site – good work!!

    Reply
  3. John

    What does “the energy these systems use is extracted from the fabric of the space around us” mean?

    You neglect how these science experiments are scaled up to deliver any APPRECIABLE energy to the masses. Yes, the jump from cool science experiment or theory to large (or even personal) scale is often the truth as to why these ideas aren’t saving the world. We can’t all have Casimir Effect machines weighing dozens of tons to generate the kilowatts your average house needs every day.

    Reply
    • - Collective Evolution

      Did you read the sources and watch the videos? The experiments are right in there, highlighted, all you have to do is read them. If I get you correct, you are saying that small scale models cannot be converted to large ones ? I definitely see it in a different manner…

      • Adina

        Why don’t you build one to prove that it works? Oh, that’s right… because it’s all bullshit!

        Reply
        • - Collective Evolution

          I highly doubt that lol

  4. Mauro Poggi

    and Nikola Tesla? he did it before…

    Reply
    • Mauro Poggi

      i mean… he discovered the free energy before…

      Reply
  5. Dan

    No government can suppress the internet.

    Post some schematics, plans, diagrams, etc.

    They can’t beat us all to death!

    Reply
    • Um… actually, governments all over the world suppress the internet. its called censorship.
      the US does it, China does it, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Iran… practically every government in the world censors the internet.

      Reply
  6. Mauro Poggi

    why you dont put my reply??
    i said: Now the scientist confirm the reality of free energy?? And Nikola Tesla what? He discovered it before…

    Reply
  7. Kasper

    I THINK THERE IS A NEED TO DEFINE WHAT “FREE ENERGY” IS. BEFORE THIS IS DEFINED, IT IS DIFFICULT TO HAVE A DISCUSSION, BECAUSE THERE SEEMS TO BE VERY DIFFERING IDEAS ABUT WHAT IT IS. AND IF WE ARE TO HAVE A DISCUSSION ABOUT WHETHER FREE ENERGY EXISTS, IT IS IMPORTANT TO FIRST AGREE ABOUT WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT.

    I HAVE BEEN STUDYING THIS FIELD FOR 6 YEARS AND I AM YET TO HEAR A CLEAR DEFINITION ON WHAT FREE ENERGY ACTUALLY IS. I AM ALSO A MARINE ENGINEER BY TRADE, SO I UNDERSTAND ENERGY FAIRLY WELL, BOTH THERMODYNAMICS AND ELECTRICAL.

    I THINK TESLA WAS A GENIUS BUTH ALSO A DREAMER AND HE LIKED TO EXAGGERATE HIS RESEARCH TO GET THE FUNDING HEE NEEDED. THE FINANCIERS AND TECHNICAL ADVISORS OF THE DAY DIDN’T HAVE THE FORESIGHT THAT TESLA HAD. SOME OF HIS CLAIMS WERE REALLY OUT THERE, EVEN FOR TODAY. BUT IT WOULD HAVE BEEN NICE TO GIVE HIM UNLIMITED FUNDS AND MANPOWER.

    TO BE ABLE TO CLASSIFY SOMETHING AS “FREE ENERGY” WE MUST FIRST HAVE A CLEAR DEFINITION FOR WHAT IT IS.

    THE COLD FUSION FIELD HAS SEEN SOME VERY INTERESTING PROGRESS IN RECENT YEARS, WITH SEVERAL THIRD PARTY VERIFICATIONS OF EXCESS ENERGY. THIS IS ALWAYS ANGRILY CONTESTED BY THE RELIGIOUS FANATICS OF YESTERDAYS PHYSICS.

    THAT’S THE WAY IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN IN HISTORY. BIG ADVANCES ARE MET WITH FIERCE OPPOSITION FROM THE GATEKEEPERS OF THE STATUS QUO.

    Reply
    • David Hereaux

      Free energy is something that gives you energy, over and over without feeding it coal, natural gas or nuclear fusion.
      Right?

      Reply
    • - Collective Evolution

      I think it’s pretty well defined..but some may disagree (obviously) Yeah I’ve looked into cold fusion a little pretty cool stuff! Thanks for reading :)

    • Kasper

      I WILL ALSO SAY THAT THE “FREE ENERGY” FIELD IS BATHED IN WELLMEANING, BUT UNDEREDUCATED EXPERIMENTERS WHO THINKS THEY HAVE SOMETHING AND MAKES BIG CLAIMS, ONLY TO BE PROVEN WRONG. I HAVE HEARD SOME REALLY OUTLANDISH CLAIMS OVER THE YEARS. IT IS INTRIGING AT FIRST, BUT DISCOURAGES AND SERVES TO DISCREDIT THE FIELD WHEN FOUND TO BE UNFOUNDED.

      Reply
      • Yeah, Kasper, a lot of these “outlandish” claims are the ones that the “gatekeepers” reference in order to maintain their “status quo!” However, the problem is not necessarily with them but, with the ones that actually DO come up with ideas and ways of producing “free energy.” Every paper, article, reference material, etc., always comes up short of showing exactly “how” to create this free energy. “Why?” The only answer I can come up with is that these people “want” to get paid for “their” free energy. In which case, there is…”NO FREE ENERGY!!!”

        As for “Tesla”…NO! He did NOT exaggerate anything that he worked on. If anything, he didn’t explain everything he was capable of doing to it’s fullest extent. Furthermore, “that” which he did explain, has been compromised and/or distorted by the “elite” (for lack of a better description) in order that his findings NOT be used for the “greater good!!!”

        What I’d like to see, are the “plans” necessary to build, any one, of these “free energy” generators so that I could build one myself. “IF” I could build one, then anyone could build one! NOW…we’re talking!!!

        Reply
        • tom

          Bobby# What’s a gatekeeper?

          Reply
        • tom

          Bobby#: You’re not trying very hard: Google ‘plans for free energy machines.” There are many. Just send money.

          Tesla was a genius who lived off other people’s money. He was also a showman who could make Barnum and Bailey blush. He also gave a lot of patents away – partly because the licensees backed him into a corner, partly because he was generous, always planning to get rich off his next idea. In his later years he was more theoretician than inventor, and that’s when he came up with the ‘free energy’ ideas. Like all who followed, Nikola never had a working model. Some did real research in the 50s, most were frauds. Google him, it’s a great read.

          Reply
      • - Collective Evolution

        It’s hard to believe these devices don’t exist with all of the proof that’s out there

  8. tom

    Kasper: You’re right: I should have said the USPO would not accept applications for a perpetual motion machine without a working model.” http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2011/10/11/the-patent-law-of-perpetual-motion/id=19828/

    Meyer’s patents were for electrolysis – and I’m amazed they were granted because patents rarely cover common electrochemical reactions. He somehow sold it toe the USPO and Meyer won three patents. There are links to them in the footnotes here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_Meyer%27s_water_fuel_cell#cite_note-US5149407-4

    Meyer also lost a fraud lawsuit to investors because he failed to deliver a working prototype of a water-powered car. Once again, it’s all wishful thinking.

    Reply
    • Meyer had a working model, he was not the only one :)

      Reply
      • tom

        If that’s true john, why was he successfully sued by his investors for failing to deliver a working model?

        Reply
  9. tom

    Mike, yours is a target rich environment: Feel free to start your own battery stations, and: By that last mile in the hundred driven in the 1920s, how fast could that E- car go on a near-dead battery?, and more important, where is the money or energy savings in electric cars?

    Using the Chevy Volt as an example: The car doesn’t sell without a federal subsidy; You can use the AC and headlights, or heater and headlights, but not both or the battery only lasts 10 miles or so. Charging a flat battery with a 120V charger takes 16 hrs which makes it an every-other day electric car for a working stiff. With a mere $5000 investment in a 220v charger it can charge a flat battery in 8 hrs. Maybe a spare $8000 battery will solve that problem eh?

    After a minor accident the battery can cook off and burn the car to the ground weeks later. Consumer Reports – an outfit in love with all thingsgreen and whiz-bang says the break-even point of the Volt compared to a gas powered jalopy is at about the 9 year point if the battery lasts that long. A new battery erases any imagined savings, and the cost equivalent of miles/watt is worse than miles per gallon. All that’s left is the smugness of driving a Volt.

    Then there is the added stress on the power grid to charge it, the extra coal needed to generate the power to run the charger. The rare-earth metals needed to make the motors, magnets, controllers and battery cannot be mined in the USA. Oh, you want the car charges by windmills, solar panels and composted iPods? Their cost per KWH is twice that of coal and 3x that of nukes, and need a spinning coal/hydro/nuke turbine somewhere to fill in the gaps when the wind quits and sun goes down. The rate-payer gets the bill.

    Lose the subsidies and your fantasy land crumbles rather quickly.

    Germany shuttered their nukes and plans to replace them with coal: http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/08/31/germany-insane-or-just-plain-stupid/ No mention of free energy or perpetual motion as options.

    Reply
    • jeremy

      are you seriously using the subsidy argument? lmfao, when oil and gas companies are already subsidized far greater then any green energy is at the moment? lmfao. you are a bought and paid shill or a simpleton.

      Reply
      • tom

        Jeremy, Yes, I am. In most cases we think of a subsidy as a cash payout, and that isn’t how it works. That is akin to thinking that if you are in the 20% tax bracket then by allowing you to keep 80% of what you earn, you are being subsidized 80%. It’s flawed logic.

        Subsidies and credits come in many form, mostly in business tax abatement to all corporations, not just oil and gas. Remember, a tax abatement allows a company to keep money that is already theirs, and since it is a corp, they either distribute it as a dividend to investors or re-invest it in operations rather than give to government to give to crack-moms. Yet it is ‘characterized’ as a handout identical to the half billion dollar cash gift DOE made to Solyndra and 300 million to EDP Renováveis and NaturEner for failed ‘green’ adventures with no repercussions, no production.

        Yes, some wind and solar projects produce revenue if they are sited near power lines that can take their product. many are not, waiting for the local power company to upgrade the distribution system, an imposition in the local ratepayer. If they don’t upgrade, all that extra energy turns into more heat than light.

        Power companies are forced by the EPA and states to develop a ‘power portfolio’ that has a percentage of wind and solar input.’ Oddly, hydro is arbitrarily not classed as a renewable source. Talk about logic gone astray!

        I live in Montana and the state is flush with cash from the Bakken oil and gas produced by fracking and horizontal drilling, techniques developed by private industry and not government. ND, PA, TX and OK are also flush with cash due to hydrocarbon producers, so if they are being subsidized it is vastly offset by production and tax revenue.

        In the 70’s much of the direct tax credits went to Nuclear power development. That was from the deep thinkers and swift doers completing construction of that truly free energy source: hydro power. Sadly, paranoia over anything nuclear drove DOE to drive up simple construction cost until utilities threw in the towel and mothballed many under construction. So DOE was dolling out money while demanding it be spent on useless things. EPA is doing similar to coal plants, without the subsidies.

        Oddly, shallow thinkers have convinced the EPA that free-range salmon deserve a free-flowing river and some dams have also been destroyed to let fish spawn, a terrible waste when lost production could prevent brownouts in parts of the country.

        Another significant detail is that we get a huge ROI for every dollar the oil and gas producer is allowed to keep compared to wind and solar, few of which have produced revenue and none would if they lost their subsidy. And we pay twice, because someone has to keep spinning coal/gas/nuke reserves running to fill in for sporadic wind and solar. For the billions spent on wind and solar it produces about 3% of the nation’s power needs with a goal of 10% by 2020 at tremendous cost to the tax and ratepayer. 95-97% of the rest of our energy needs are produced by the ‘old reliable stuff’ that keeps the lights on so dreamers and schemers can sketch the next big way to screw the tax and ratepayer.

        A rarely mentioned detail about renewables is ‘nameplate’ vs actual output: A GE windmill might have a 1.5 MW rating, so a 100 fan wind farm has a 1500MW claimed output. Your car might have a 250HP engine but you rarely run at capacity and neither do wind and solar farms. Power companies evaluate output and reliability over time and season and most come up with a daily average that is less than 15% of the nameplate/farm capacity. That raises the cost of construction per MWH by a factor of eight or nine – not at all what you read in the sales literature.

        Meanwhile the frackers are in the Bakken Badlands doing it for profit and generating tax revenue.

        Ethanol – EtOh – is a special screwjob to the consumer where we pay farmers to convert diesel tractor power into gasohol with a net loss in efficiency, pay him again for crop loss if the yield per acs is less than expected, then lose a third time because a kilo of ethanol has 60% of the power of a kilo of mogas, so mileage is 40% less (Drivers and EPA measure mileage by volume, which varies by fuel temp. Producers measure it by mass, which doesn’t change).

        So we subsidize EtOh three times and get less mileage. And EtOh has poor storage characteristics; It absorbs water readily which forms phase layers as it cools with water at the bottom corroding parts and killing engines (FAA forbids gasohol use in aircraft approved for mogas). Etoh solvency vs rubber causes clogged jets and injectors. Note the warning in small engine warranties that it’s void if operated with more than 10% EtOh.

        I got way off topic here, yet, this blog seems to be a backwater of misconceptions and bad ideas. Ronald Reagan said it best: “Government’s view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.”

        Reply
        • Nonya

          With all do respect.. because you seem to be a level headed guy.. You do not do enough research . If I make a new kind of ball. and you are the leading ball manufacturer. If is in your best interest that my new ball fail. I can show you “consumer” made machines that out perform the Big corporations version that you are speaking for/of. If you force my ball to fail and then claim “see look at that I told you is was crap” That is not the same as it really being crap now is it? Every new invention is bought and sold long before we know about it. The corporations around the world have become very good at controlling all aspects of their product from idea to assembly line. They have long money and lots of fingers in many pies. For you to get an Idea off the ground you would have to be better than James Bond. I am going to give you a nickels worth of free advice. The easiest way to spot someone that does not know what they are talking about . Is to look and see if they give a solution to the problem rather than tearing ideas apart. The biggest and only reason we have an energy crisis is because the people in charge do not want to solve it. They are making too much money off of it.

          Reply
          • tom

            Nonya: I do research where there is evidence and leave the unproven to the dreamers and schemers. People on this site claim there are evildoers out there who suppress good ideas. Watch the TV infomercials you’ll note there is no shortage of mass marketers who will pedal goofy products, so I don’t give much credence to your conspiracy theory: That evil mfr is more likely to buy the rights to your superball and charge a super-profit if it really is that super. The problem is, few are.

            Reply
          • The “car companies” here in America “proved” everything you just said ever since Ford started producing “cars!” Various people over the years have “invented” and/or “modified” carburetors that can get 60 miles per gallon and more, from a “standard” V-8 engine. Has any ONE of these EVER made it to the shelf? Has any ONE of these EVER made it to the manufacturers vehicles? NO! It simply isn’t “profitable” for the “oil companies” OR the manufacturers!!! PERIOD!!!

            Reply
            • deslocc124

              Actually, there is an engine which is made in this country and sent over to Germany, it allows a car to get 72.1 miles/gallon. It’s said that here in the US the engine is prohibited because it ‘pollutes’ too much which is BS. The reason is if people could drive farther on a gallon, they would buy less gas less often, oil companies want their money yesterday. So, that is why we don’t and you cannot get one of these engines here in the US. Greed is the motivating factor. It’s the same with heating oil, it takes less refining to make than gasoline and yet the price is very high? Why? Because they produce only what it needed and not a drop more, so it makes it appear that ‘supply is limited’ and why the price is so high. But then People have always heard ‘hurry while supplies are limited’ yet oddly every order tends to get filled.. imagine that.

            • tom

              deslocc; how about sharing specifics on said engine? Who builds and exports it? Where?

            • “Yeap! You’re a 100% correct…on all points!” AND, it’s a DAMN SHAME!!! Isn’t it!

              Yeah…I’ve been around for 60 years. I “remember” these “carburetors” being unveiled on National Television and disappearing into the mist…soon thereafter. NEVER TO HEARD FROM AGAIN! I also remember the creation of OPEC! How “our” American businessmen and American Companies (even though British-owned), BUILT & OWNED, the oil companies in Saudi Arabia and then, “disbanded” in order to form OPEC so that “they” couldn’t be held responsible for the OIL GOUGING THAT HAS TAKEN PLACE EVER SINCE!!!

              “Trust and Believe” those Saudi Arabians ARE still being controlled by these same Americans!

            • tom

              Bobby-Got proof of said carb?

          • The thing that has to be remembered is that oil and gas will run out eventually – then Man will be forced to use alternative means of power. Another thing to think about is that we shouldn’t get lost in words and our interpretation of them. A third thing is that not everyone can afford to get their ideas patented as it is a big business in itself and building a working model on your own isn’t always cheap either (Catch 22: If you had the money to patent and build your own ideas, you wouldn’t need outside help but as the big corporations and government pull all the stings, you aren’t going to get it as you are seen as a threat to their existence i.e. a risk, not a certainty (“A revolution is a struggle to the death between the future and the past” Fidel Castro).

            Reply
            • tom

              Regarding your claim that we will eventually run out of gas and oil. As long as the law of supply and demand are allowed to operate unfettered, it might not be true.

              In hard rock mining there is usually a ‘core’ or lead to a deposit and it fades out the further you get from the core. At $35 an oz, gold miners took the easy stuff and abandoned the mine. At $1500 an oz it is profitable to re-open the mine and work the margins. It is also profitable to re-process the tailings, getting metals and profit others missed.

              In the early 1900s oil drillers looked for pools: It was cheap and easy. They capped and abandoned depleted wells.

              Good old supply and demand kicked in as the easy stuff got scarce and prices went up. Drillers adapted with new techniques that made a profit at the new prices. Supply increased, price dropped, life went on.

              Here’s an excellent example of why ‘peak oil’ and other theories may be wrong: http://grist.org/climate-energy/1000-question-did-the-population-bomb-ever-explode/

              The USGS has free maps online with estimates of billions of barrels of oil in this country open for lease. There were no takers until about 15 years ago when the price rose and technology made it profitable.

              As an aside, the USGS maps show many near-surface tar sand and coal tar deposits that are politically incorrect and impossible to get permitted. Coal gas and shale gas and fluids were politically correct but un-ecomical to recover until recently.

              Coal produces over 40% of the country’s energy. USGS estimates that we have over a thousand year proven reserve in MT and WY alone. But coal is losing market share as political environmentalists maneuver to eliminate it’s use and force on us what the anointed think is politically correct. So saying we are running out of energy sources is nonsense: The the Sierra Club et al are taking us there. Visit their web site for a real eye opener.

              Decades ago, shale was considered uneconomical to exploit: There is no ‘core’ deposit, and there is no pocket in the usual sense, it forms huge but thin beds in TX, ND, MT and PA.

              Today they are easily exploited and produce more fluids and gas than we consume. Sadly, cars need fluids and nat gas is the predominant shale product, so we still import fluids and export finished products. LNG powered cars, trucks and buses have been around since the 1920s, so it isn’t like we are inventing anything if we adapted to what’s plentiful.

              Project MoHo and the Russian Kola Superdeep drilled down 40,000 ft and discovered methane and ethane, which does not align with current theory that all hydrocarbon sources are beds of dead sea critters deposited near the surface. This raised many questions. The most important is, is it an exploitable resource?

              When oil and gas prices rose, owners had abandoned wells uncapped to see what could be produced. Some had refilled and produced better than the first time. Did it infiltrate from adjacent rock, or was it produced in the rock?

              In experiments, we have been able to produce Methane from free hydrogen and carbon at the intense temps and pressures at those depths, and the feedstock is crystalline rock, not organic rock. Of course, this is just a theory, but so was fracking and horizontal drilling 50 years ago.

              For further reading I recommend any of Valclav Smil’s books on the topic. Quite informative.

  10. colin

    I had researched this online… I found that some believe that the arc of the coven was a device that was inside the pyramids of Egypt and provided power for wireless communication and anti gravity for extremely large stones among other uses…. no less a great explanation of the fabled desperation and search for the arc of the coven (I’m unsure of the spelling but i imagine some one knows what I’m talking about).

    Reply
  11. Yes, it is right to acknowledge the reality of free energy technology. However, the number of people that will acknowledge that “free energy” technology has already been weaponised and was used on 9/11 to destroy the WTC is small. It seems that some figures in the free energy movement are out to suggest this is not the case (despite the available evidence). Perhaps folks don’t realise all the reasons for the suppression of the technology. Please see http://www.drjudywood.com/ and also these links: http://www.checktheevidence.co.uk/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=382&Itemid=60
    http://www.checktheevidence.co.uk/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=218&Itemid=55

    Now then, why would a physicist involved in “cold fusion” research suddenly, in 2005, come onto the 9/11 truther scene? Perhaps you should research this, see if it’s true, then write and ask him that question…

    Reply
  12. Robert

    Free energy= collapse of all governments.

    Reply
    • C. Pascoe

      Amen to that!!!

      Reply
  13. This is so frustratingly obvious and includes many other fields, including medicine and education. Such people would stay rich and ahead of the game, if they invested in these new products / way of doing things but instead they fear and try to suppress such change and instead try to sell us old, outdated and ineffectual or even harmful ‘answers,’ to stay in power and stay in control. They sell us drugs that don’t cure the problem but hook us like junkies, in the hope that even though our lives are sinking before our eyes, they will work because they belong to a world view we want to be part of, rather than a world view that instead is the truth (The red pill or the blue). As Einstein said ‘Insanity is carrying out the same action again and again, even though it ha been found not to work the first time.’

    Reply
  14. Doug R

    is it possible to build one of these devices? such as blue prints, parts listings and such to create a unit capable of suppying a home with enough power to run appliances, heating/cooling.. etc. etc.? Most of this suppressed tech is limited to where they cannot sell the actual assembled device, but nothing says they cannot supply the knowledge to build one yourself.

    Reply
    • Yeah, Doug! I’ve asked this question, also! It seems that the people that DO have these devices “want” to get “paid” just like the BIG CORPORATIONS! Should someone “post” one of these devices, I highly doubt it will be “up” for long as that…”just wouldn’t DO!” (for the “elite”)

      Reply
      • deslocc124

        As I’ve heard on some radio shows when people call in and ask for the station to ‘advertise’ for investors, the stations most of the time tell the person to release the info on the web far and wide and then charge a fee as a consultant to make the money. Because just like in that movie chain reaction, Reeve’s character sent the machine’s design and spec’s out to anyone and everyone, I’m sure most simply trashed what they got and few who knew what it was tried to find and suppress it. Like when Obama went to Africa and told them they could not drive cars, have A/C and such because ‘energy was limited’ when these devices seem to say just the opposite. Plus I don’t think any small device could generate a magnetic field that would disrupt the earth. even if there were a few hundred thousand of them in one area. There was also the idea of a ‘Thorium reactor’ which was a lot safer than nuclear reactors and one guy proved it and had it running for six years before he shut it down. The tech was abandoned because they could not use it to make bombs..

        Reply
        • Amazing isn’t it! ALL this “deception!”

          It simply “boggles the imagination!!!”

          Reply
  15. david

    There is no such thing as “free energy”. The ealier mankind realizes this, the better. After we realized all the “green energy” is far from being green, we now hope that “free energy” will save us our over-the-limits consumption and that all can stay as it is. Hooray! Energy hungry consumerism can just go on as usual with nice clean free energy.

    We better wake up and realize that there is no way to maintain this lifestyle and not cause severe interruptions with the natural flow. You cannot create energy, only transform it. And whenever and however you do that in a large scale, it has some implications for the energetic and material field around.

    People do not understand what zero point energy is. Just with nuclear energy, they do not know the consequences, they do not know the risks they do not know the implications.

    Few people understand what these devices really do.

    Here is what Dan Winter (who has himself developed a device and researched it) has to say about it:

    “Calling it free energy is a mistake. Because these devices are tapping into the energy field of the earth – the same field that holds our plants atmosphere together. We should not call it free energy. You can make earthquakes, if you do not understand what these devices really do, because you are creating all these longitudinal ripples in the vacuum. We need more education first, And that starts by NOT calling it free energy”

    Reply
    • colin

      sounds suppressive in a world where the paramedicals company’s can get any old poison through and on your plate by dinner time if they chose… besides people are most likely going to destroy the planet one way or another.. the way i see it america is the new africa.. no chance of growing good food their! :(

      Reply
      • tom

        What paramedical companies? What poison?

        Reply
        • colin

          pharmaceutical companies… and they are putting nearly everything in your foods at the large chain stores.. i know some things i buy have antidepressants added and if you could test your tap water you would be surprised whats in their too.

          Reply
          • tom

            Colin: What is the name of said drug companies? The name of the drugs? The name of the stores? The name of the adulterated foods? What is the goal? How do you know these things? What are your sources?

            Reply
    • Robert

      Last time I checked David mother nature didn’t charge for her resources. What costs money is the extraction of these FREE resources. The problem here is control of resources. If there were devices that tapped into unlimited supply of energy there be no control over the population. It’s the that simple David. Anyway what are you worried about energy can’t be created nor destroyed. It gets recycled back to source. It’s coming out whether the Elite like it or not. They can’t suppress these devices forever. They sure benefit form using it and suppressing it.

      Reply
    • - Collective Evolution

      Sure there is, did you read the article? Did you read the sources? Did you watch the videos?

      It’s not “free energy” per say, but it is extracting it from a limitless sources.

      • david

        Hey Arjun,

        that is exactly what I doubt. The energy is extracted from the space-energy sourrounding the device. . Doing that large scale all over the world would cause a massive disruption in the field, with unknown consequences.

        But that is just my little view on it.

        Blessings
        David

        Reply
        • - Collective Evolution

          thanks for sharing :)

  16. tom

    For those who want plans for free energy machine, Google is your friend: I got 69,200,000 hits on ‘plans for a free energy machine’ So much for the mythical ‘elite’ hiding them! Let us know what you learn!

    Reply
  17. tom

    I have a free energy machine at a remote mountain cabin. It violates no laws of physics, chemistry, biology or thermodynamics. You can build it from hardware store parts. The patent has expired. Free plans already on the web.

    Reply
    • “COOL!!!” Do you have the “link?” AND, more importantly, “Are you willing to share that link with the rest of us?”

      Reply
      • tom

        Yes of course, but first you need to go back and answer the questions I’ve posted to you

        Reply
      • tom

        Sure, but like Arjun and others, I need to dance around it a bit: Go back and provide satisfactory answers the questions I’ve asked of you and I’ll provide the info you want of me, fair enough?

        Reply
        • OR, at least…NOT FOR “FREE”…HUH!!!

          Reply
          • tom

            No cost in dollars, just info for your claims.

            Reply
        • “Excuse me?” ALL I’ve EVER asked for are “FREE PLANS” for “FREE ENERGY!” NOTHING MORE!

          So exactly, “What questions do “I”, myself, need to answer?”

          I’VE NEVER SEEN “FREE PLANS!!!”

          BTW…”IF” you have had SIXTY-NINE MILLION “HITS” ON “YOUR” LINK, then that would put a very sizable “dent” in the Power Grid…”Why hasn’t anyone heard about it?”

          Oh! That’s right…CENSORSHIP!!!

          Just as I thought…NO LINK!

          Reply
          • tom

            Bobby# said:

            “Excuse me?” ALL I’ve EVER asked for are “FREE PLANS” for “FREE ENERGY!” NOTHING MORE!

            So exactly, “What questions do “I”, myself, need to answer?”

            For days I’ve asked questions and or evidence for the assertions you’ve made in your posts. Go back and answer them in a mature way and the plans are yours.

            I’VE NEVER SEEN “FREE PLANS!!!”

            Then you need to learn to google them

            BTW…”IF” you have had SIXTY-NINE MILLION “HITS” ON “YOUR” LINK,

            I didn’t say that. Go back and re-read my post.

            then that would put a very sizable “dent” in the Power Grid…

            That’s not how the internet works.

            ”Why hasn’t anyone heard about it?”

            Depends on what ‘it’ is: The grid; the web power system; google; the plans?

            Oh! That’s right…CENSORSHIP!!!

            Or shallow thinking.

            Just as I thought…NO LINK!

            See above. Play nice, justify your statements, answer the questions to statements and claims YOU made, get the reward. Why is that so hard?

            Reply
            • So much for YOU telling the TRUTH!

              “…tom
              October 20, 2013 at 12:56 pm
              For those who want plans for free energy machine, Google is your friend: I got 69,200,000 hits on ‘plans for a free energy machine’ So much for the mythical ‘elite’ hiding them! Let us know what you learn!

              – See more at: http://www.collective-evolution.com/2013/10/11/multiple-scientists-confirm-the-reality-of-free-energy-heres-the-proof/?replytocom=129234#respond…”

            • tom

              Jeeze Bobby, answer the Q’s and get the info. I’d like to see the substance behind your claims. How hard is that?

            • WOW! So you are the one “Calling the Kettle…BLACK!”

              You are the one that said, “…I didn’t say that!”

              AND YET, when I produce the EXACT comment in which you said it, you continue to deny it!

              Go TROLL SOMEWHERE ELSE!

              I’M DONE WITH YOU!

              (forgive me for the language, Arjun)

            • tom

              Bobby, I’m trying to teach you how to fish. I thought that plans for my nifty contraption would motivate you to learn how. It seems I botched it. Rather than answer the mail you spend time badmouthing me and taking my words out of context and attacking the messenger.

              It reminds me of a quote attributed to Will James: ‘mankind’s storehouse of ignorance isn’t the ‘I don’t knows, but the knowing of so much that just isn’t so.” Let me defuse this and go for a teachable moment.

              I have suggested Googling various topics, like ‘plans for free energy machines,’ where Google tallied 69M hits – or sites that address the topic at hand. Rather than do that you called names. Apparently you are a stranger to search engines, easily fixed.

              With the internet and a search engine -SE- you have the world’s research, libraries and data at your fingertips, and most if it is free. (bear in mind you get what you pay for, which include those selling snake oil and goofy ideas and points of view). How you phrase the question affects the answer, but I find that a cut and past of the first sentence of an article or claim into an SE gets me started.

              If you don’t know how, ask someone to show you how. It’s easy and fun. The old Boolean search language isn’t required any more. Plain English will do.

              When I typed ‘plans for free energy machines’ into Google it tallied the number of ‘hits’ at 69 million. That;s their number, not mine.

              There are many SEs, like Google, Bing, Yahoo, Norton, Jeeves and Wikipedia. SEs make it so easy – it’s like having a newsroom full of the fact-checkers at your fingertips. Granted, how you phrase a question affects the answer, and often you won’t like it, but that’s life.

              Snopes.com is a special case: It has a searchable database that addresses urban legends and old wives tales on the web. A review of the topic categories on their home page is an education in how much silly stuff there is out there.

              Whenever a topic of questionable veracity comes up I search it, review the preponderance of data and articles and form an opinion. I try really hard not to search for data that supports my point of view and steer clear of new-age, green, political and pseudoscience sites like CE. The process often makes me mad, but it probably leads to the truth more often than the HooHaa CE posts.

              I might add that a scan of the CE home page shows they recycle topics. A review of the CE home page shows that ‘free energy’ topic has been recycled at least once and well debunked by people far smarter than us, yet here it is again. Apparently there is money in doing so. CE also borrows from like-minded sites, which in turn borrow from CE. It doesn’t take long to figure out that when CE references the skeptical scientist who references CE on the same topic, neither are valid. It’s just mutual support using innuendo and opinion recycled as fact. It’s like saying “I saw it on TV!’ Yeah? TV doesn’t sell fact, they sell air time priced by the number of viewers. Apparently web sites get paid in similar ways.

              Like minded people gather to reinforce their faith and recruit others as true believers. Consider the good Christians in the KKK as an extreme example: Their web site is a model of arrogant narrow-mindedness and they all agree theirs is the right way. http://www.skepticalscience.com/ is identical but cloaks itself in the aura of the anointed: Creating well-crafted ‘scientific’ arguments to justify their faith in man-made global warming: If you disagree or point out flaws in their argument you are an idiot and promptly banned from comment. Yet both bill themselves as a ‘townhall on the web.’ Townhalls are open forums with opposing opinions that sometimes cannot be resolved in one or ten meetings. I must admit, in that light CE excels compared to others.

              When you have a chance search for the scientific method. You’ll find it isn’t a thing, it’s a process where ‘I don’t know is perfectly allowed and sometimes required and uncertainty is part of lifeBobby, I’m trying to teach you how to fish. I thought that plans for my nifty contraption would motivate you to learn how. It seems I botched it. Rather than answer the mail you spend time badmouthing me and taking my words out of context and attacking the messenger.

              It reminds me of a quote attributed to Will James: ‘mankind’s storehouse of ignorance isn’t the ‘I don’t knows, but the knowing of so much that just isn’t so.” Let me defuse this and go for a teachable moment.

              I have suggested Googling various topics, like ‘plans for free energy machines,’ where Google tallied 69M hits – or sites that address the topic at hand. Rather than do that you called names. Apparently you are a stranger to search engines, easily fixed.

              With the internet and a search engine -SE- you have the world’s research, libraries and data at your fingertips, and most if it is free. (bear in mind you get what you pay for, which include those selling snake oil and goofy ideas and points of view). How you phrase the question affects the answer, but I find that a cut and past of the first sentence of an article or claim into an SE gets me started.

              If you don’t know how, ask someone to show you how. It’s easy and fun. The old Boolean search language isn’t required any more. Plain English will do.

              When I typed ‘plans for free energy machines’ into Google it tallied the number of ‘hits’ at 69 million. That;s their number, not mine.

              There are many SEs, like Google, Bing, Yahoo, Norton, Jeeves and Wikipedia. SEs make it so easy – it’s like having a newsroom full of the fact-checkers at your fingertips. Granted, how you phrase a question affects the answer, and often you won’t like it, but that’s life.

              Snopes.com is a special case: It has a searchable database that addresses urban legends and old wives tales on the web. A review of the topic categories on their home page is an education in how much silly stuff there is out there.

              Whenever a topic of questionable veracity comes up I search it, review the preponderance of data and articles and form an opinion. I try really hard not to search for data that supports my point of view and steer clear of new-age, green, political and pseudoscience sites like CE. The process often makes me mad, but it probably leads to the truth more often than the HooHaa CE posts.

              I might add that a scan of the CE home page shows they recycle topics. A review of the CE home page shows that ‘free energy’ topic has been recycled at least once and well debunked by people far smarter than us, yet here it is again. Apparently there is money in doing so. CE also borrows from like-minded sites, which in turn borrow from CE. It doesn’t take long to figure out that when CE references the skeptical scientist who references CE on the same topic, neither are valid. It’s just mutual support using innuendo and opinion recycled as fact. It’s like saying “I saw it on TV!’ Yeah? TV doesn’t sell fact, they sell air time priced by the number of viewers. Apparently web sites get paid in similar ways.

              Like minded people gather to reinforce their faith and recruit others as true believers. Consider the good Christians in the KKK as an extreme example: Their web site is a model of arrogant narrow-mindedness and they all agree theirs is the right way. http://www.skepticalscience.com/ is identical but cloaks itself in the aura of the anointed: Creating well-crafted ‘scientific’ arguments to justify their faith in man-made global warming: If you disagree or point out flaws in their argument you are an idiot and promptly banned from comment. Yet both bill themselves as a ‘townhall on the web.’ Townhalls are open forums with opposing opinions that sometimes cannot be resolved in one or ten meetings. I must admit, in that light CE excels compared to others.

              When you have a chance search for the scientific method. You’ll find it isn’t a thing, it’s a process where ‘I don’t know’ and uncertainty is not only being honest but expected, and unsubstantiated claims discouraged. any time you hear someone proclaim ‘science proves’ such and so, they are probably wrong. The process is about eliminating competing hypotheses until only one remains. If you eliminate all but one it might be right, but, knowledge is constantly changing, so we might find a better hypothesis next week. That uncertainty drives most people nuts.

              History is loaded with those who do it backwards, claiming science ‘proves’ their point of view. That’s not science, it’s religion.

              There is also basic science education, where we are taught commonly accepted processes, theories and laws of the universe that work well most of the time in most situations with predictable results.

              Remember that over the last 500 years mankind has pretty well explored and exploited all the easy stuff and a lot of the hard stuff. We’ve done nuclear fusion in thermonuclear weapons and know the output energy is greater than the input energy. What we know strongly suggests that we can do it in a controlled manner, so we pursue fusion reactors. On the other end of the spectrum there is no working model of a perpetual motion machine. Such a machine violates laws of physics. Promoters claim theirs draws on energy sources science is unaware of. Can science prove it wrong? No, you cannot prove a negative. But is it likely considering what we know? No, doing so would violate other established laws of the universe. Are the laws inviolable? No, but it’s unlikely to violate them.

              On 12 Oct 13 Kasper hit the nail on the head when he said we need to define ‘free energy.’ I waited for a thoughtful response but there was none that I can find. That’s fine, it makes mine the freest of free sources.

      • DOK

        No, there is not link. Because it is not real.

        Reply
        • I’m sure you read his “response”…he has to “…dance around a bit!”

          I’m pretty sure you are correct…”THERE IS NO LINK!”

          On the “other-hand”…I’m REALLY “HOPING & PRAYING” THERE IS!!!

          Reply

Leave a Reply

Collective Evolution welcomes differing viewpoints and thought-provoking opinions that add value to the discussion, but comments may be moderated to remove profanity or remarks that detract from a healthy conversation. For the best interest of the community, please refrain from posting vulgar comments, profanity, or personal attacks. Comments submitted may automatically be flagged for review by our moderation team before appearing on the website.

Upcoming CE Party!

Party

Featured TEDx Talk

TEDx - Agents of Change

Free Exclusive Film Screening!

Free Film Screening
advertisement - learn more

CETV - What's On

Published: May 7, 2015

Subscribe:
Connect, Inspire, Chat & Share!
CE Radio - Listen now!
advertisement - learn more
Amazers
Subscribe to CE Magazine Monthly For Exclusive Content!
The Mind Unleashed

We Recommend

www.truththeory.com

Trending Now

rat

What Would A Rat Do: Rescue And Save Another Or Go For The Food?

Researchers at the Kwansei Gakuin University in Japan found that when rats were put in a situation where they could drown they will, indeed, rescue their distressed pals from danger—even when they’re offered chocolate instead.