Never believe anything that has a multi-trillion dollar motive, and a means of total global control... (fossil fuel)

There isn't a monopoly on energy technology. You can generate clean renewable energy at home. You need things like geothermal setups, wind turbines or solar panels. You can even create fairly passable ones homebrew style out of spare parts for little to no money. I would be highly suspicious of any other method for large scale energy generation as the three I listed are by far the most efficient and easyly accessible.

You're just stating the common narrative, which I'm convinced is nothing but a gigantic fraud.

Explain this little trinket: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GFIlXaABU54

According to Meyers given the numbers he gave for the car's performance it performed electrolysis below the breakdown threshold for water. This means it violates the second law of thermodynamics. Nothing breaks the second law of thermodynamics. Upon closer inspection of the circuit it appears to be a volatic cell taking in energy from an external battery to electrolyse water. It doesn't add up and my bet would be that the car was a fraud. In the video he claims that 83 liters will get him from New York to Los Angles but making very conservative guesses for the mass of the car (<100kg) that exceeds the chemical energy available in that water. It was not a fuel cell, there was no fabled brown's gas and just like every other perpetual energy machine before it, it appears to be wrong. In addition a quick search fails to reveal a single peer reviewed scientific paper proving how the damn thing works.

"Nothing breaks the second law of thermodynamics."

Says who? You, your teachers from college, the people whom taught them? Who are they? AFAIC, they are all no one, and they know nothing. I do not believe in "laws", they exist to be broken. I believe anything is possible.

I believe there may be a catalyst that can crack water on contact, and that it may be an alloy..

A catalyst does not add energy. It makes the reaction occur quicker or easier.

Of course it "doesn't add energy" but it could certainly crack water into it's respective parts.

Research on exactly that is already being done, one team claims to have created such an alloy, that with nothing more than sunshine, cracks water...

I think what he's saying is that it takes energy to break chemical bonds and that a catalyst doesn't provide an additional source of energy. Consequently, your statement can't be valid since the process of "cracking water" takes energy and a catalyst does not provide energy.

TL;DR, I get what you're saying, but catalyst was the wrong word to use.

What would one call an alloy that cracks water?

Also, I should have initially mentioned sunshine is also required...

That depends on how it facilitates the reaction.

Edit: I'd probably call it a reducing agent... but that's not technically correct either, but I suppose such is the problem when considering the unconventional.

Indeed.

Conventional science can crack water with sunlight - use a solar cell to generate electricity, and then electrolyze the water.

But you'd be better off just using the electricity - because there are unavoidable losses at each step.

http://tv.ibtimes.com/new-alloy-may-revolutionize-clean-energy-by-efficiently-splitting-hydrogen-atoms/1772.html

Think again...

As I explained to you elsewhere, this has nothing to do with free energy - this is simply a more efficient way to hydrolyze water. You still need to put energy in to crack it - and then when you burn it you get less energy out than you initially put in.

You haven't shown any interest in engaging on the science - I'm not sure you have any understanding of the field, frankly - and you've called me rude names in each thread here. This conversation is over.

I'm convinced you're an idiot. I already said zero point energy may not exist (though I'm not convinced it doesn't). I was never arguing for the sake of it's existence, but rather, (and I quote) "incredibly efficient energy production, bordering on zero point"...

Find one sentence in which I claim "free energy" is real...

Those are your words, I never even said "free energy"...

Honestly, I think you're just trying to get me frustrated, because you're a fucking shill boy, and that's what you do...

And, if YOU COULD FUCKING READ. You'd see that we were debating terms, catalyst, etc. Not "free energy"!

I never once said a goddamn thing about free energy..

You're a useful idiot, unwittingly maintaining the corporate status quo...

When did I say anything about "free energy"?

Of course it "doesn't add energy" but it could certainly crack water into it's respective parts.

Would you believe in a "catalyst" that could lift a heavy stone to the top of a mountain for free? "I have a back way up the mountain which is completely flat."

The only reason you can say things like that is that you don't understand chemistry. Cracking water takes energy - a lot of it. Catalysts don't change the amount of energy a reaction produces or consumes - they just lower the activation energy, the barrier to the reaction starting.

I'm losing my patience here. I said sunshine was also needed. READ!

http://tv.ibtimes.com/new-alloy-may-revolutionize-clean-energy-by-efficiently-splitting-hydrogen-atoms/1772.html

http://news.uns.purdue.edu/x/2007a/070515WoodallHydrogen.html

http://news.cnet.com/Producing-hydrogen-with-water-and-a-little-metal/2100-11392_3-6184879.html

http://www.spiritofmaat.com/archive/watercar/h20car2.htm

I'm losing my patience here. I said sunshine was also needed. READ!

READ! yourself. None of these articles mention sunlight - and none(*) of these articles are talking about "free energy". These technologies could be a more efficient way to crack water into hydrogen and oxygen - useful but not a method of energy generation.

(* - Looking at that last article again, they are claiming to generate free energy - "the car that runs on water" - but this is a nine-year-old article, Rothmann Technologies hasn't demonstrated anything solid since, and it frankly seems like BS to me - here are some good rebuttals.)

You fucking moron, the first video does...

I listed two different processes, the video is the one in which sunlight is part of the process, AND STATED.

You fucking moron

This discussion is over. Learn manners.

Fuck manners, and fuck you. You were putting words in my mouth, ignoring the obvious, and being just plain ignorant. You didn't examine all of the links I sent before you made this stupid comment. "READ! yourself. None of these articles mention sunlight - and none(*) of these articles are talking about "free energy"."

And what's the fucking quotes for? You certainly weren't quoting me...

I prove myself right, and you end the debate, wonderfully predictable...

FAIC, they are all no one, and they know nothing.

LOL. I assume you're not actually a scientist or an engineer, right?

I see this all the time - people who have never actually tried to work in science or engineering who scoff at the supposed ignorance of people who do.

Sure, scientists make all sorts of mistakes. But I'm going to take the word of someone who actually works in the field over "a guy on the internet" any day.

I'd bet my life you'll be eating those words within our lifetime...

I'll take (almost) any bet you care to make.

I've been having conversations like this for literally 30 years. I was skeptical then, I'm skeptical now.

The history of "over unity" machines goes back almost a thousand years (source) and yet there isn't even a single solid example - but dozens of well-known frauds.

I can't legally put a boiler and steam generator in my basement, so yeh, there is a monopoly...

Really? What do you need a boiler for? None of the technologies need a boiler and geothermal just needs a hole. Try solar or wind. Indeed for a project I've made workable solar panels out of raw materials so if you don't want to spring for real panels you can just make em.

I had a friend who knew a man who made his entire farm run on poop..... Completely self sufficient.

The government came in and said: You can't have this?? Hmm

A husband and wife annexed from the state being completely self sufficient. Told the state they weren't going to pay taxes and to stay off their land it was protected. They got attacked by special forces.

Tesla made an instrument to create unlimited energy. Once the man who funded the project found out, pulled funding. As soon as Tesla passed away all of his findings were taken by the government and are not available to anyone in the public.

It's amazing if you can slip through the cracks, but the cracks only exist because there is a monopoly on energy.

Bio diesel is completely legit and a great way for people to earn money from what would otherwise be waste. However running a bio diesel still probably requires a permit and needs to be regulated just like if you wanted to run a whiskey distillery or a ground water well because there are restrictions on such things to ensure safety. Having an unregulated, unlabeled tank of highly flammable byproducts seems like the sort of thing the government would nail people for, energy or not.

Speaking as a physicist nothing tesla did in regards to free energy has been replicated in nearly 100 years of study in high energy physics. How about we stop dwelling on the margins of centuries old papers and look at cool new and most importantly real technologies like liquid fluorine thorium reactors or JET. Hell even if 20 years is too long a timescale for cheap, safe energy there are Gen IV nuclear plants being built now in Ontario that will provide the cheapest kW hour yet produced. The best part? All of these are publicly funded in some form and results are published in public journals for everyone to see! Complete transparency.

Much of what you said I agree with except on the fact that I believe alcohol and energy are two separate discussions. Beyond that I also believe humans, who supposedly live in a free country, should have the right to blow themselves up through stupidity. Called a consensual crime. That although deals with philosophy of human nature and ethics so not something to delve into during this discussion.

LFTR and JET look very promising. I would very much like for alternate forms of energy to emerge, but it's not very likely that they will. Not only because I believe the government doesn't want to lose control over it, but also if they don't have to trade with the easterners for oil we will have no reason to interfere with them and create the facade of terror.

I myself am very interested in physics and hope to become an engineer. Personally I'm all about magnetics. Pythagorus crushed entire fleets with magnets, I believe all the crazy stories about the pyramids, easter island, coral island, and all that other stuff can be easily linked to magnetism. Even the water car runs on our earths magnetic field, people have been making music from plants, or even just having humans touch a receptor/transducer to change our personal magnetic field into sound waves and create music with that.

Buttt like I said it's all highly unlikely to get published and become accessible to the common folk because technologies like the aforementioned blur the lines of aristocracy and hierarchy. Which anyone who's read 1984 will know is NOT what the party wants ;D

In terms of generating energy from poop you would probably make bio diesel which is not an alcohol. The reason many of those technologies are unavailable is because they represent a sophistication of scientific knowledge that just isn't available to the average person. Unfortunately the pathological mindset associated with many of the people who are on the free energy wagon don't make good scientists. You end up with a lot of people looking for free lunch and before you know it you're Fleichmann and Pons.

Pythagorus crushed entire fleets with magnets,

Pythagoras did nothing of the sort! (And how could you crack wooden ships with magnetism anyway?)

You obviously haven't read into pythagoras then?

But has the work of Tesla received the time, attention and funding anywhere near that of other forms of energy? If there was even a 0.001% chance he was right wouldn't it be worth looking into? Just because modern day physicists haven't managed to find the answer doesn't mean the puzzle's unsolvable, it just means you might be missing a few pieces.

If even half of the bigger governments of the world decided they didn't need new ways to kill people for a few years and pumped all the money into Tesla's research I think we'd have it cracked. Sadly the people in power like shiny new ways to destroy things too much and anyone who has made any progress in that area gets hushed up pretty quickly

But has the work of Tesla received the time, attention and funding anywhere near that of other forms of energy?

I have personally know two people researching Tesla's work.

If there was even a 0.001% chance he was right wouldn't it be worth looking into?

Do you think Japan, China, the Soviet Union (now Russia) haven't tried to do these things? They have - they have even published on them.

The idea that energy poor countries are conspiring with energy rich countries to keep themselves second-class world citizens in ridiculous.

Do you think Japan, China, the Soviet Union (now Russia) haven't tried >to do these things? They have - they have even published on them.

The idea that energy poor countries are conspiring with energy rich >countries to keep themselves second-class world citizens in ridiculous.

If every person in the world had access to unlimited, free energy everyone would be equal, or at least a hell of a lot closer to equal than they are now. This would make governments of the world almost obsolete as they wouldn't have authority over their populations anymore. Someone can only claim to have authority of you if you depend on them for something. If you live a self-sustained life then no-one has the right to tell you how to live, as long as you don't harm others.

Free energy for all would mean, at least (and in the long term):

• an end to hunger/thirst (free energy to power green-house agriculture and to purify the water need)

• an end to dependance on oil products (who could argue that this wouldn't be a good thing?)

• less of a focus on making money (you wouldn't need to pay any bills, of any kind)

• an end to limited transport (you could go anywhere in the world for next to nothing, which would eventually lead to an end to the imaginary lines we call countries)

• All of the above would eventually lead to a world without war and without greed. Both of which are the main driving forces of our societies.

You said it would be ridiculous for poor counties to be conspiring with rich countries to keep themselves second class but the poor countries are so dependent on the rich countries, in some shape or form (humanitarian aid, resources, arms, education), that they don't really have much of a say in what happens in the big picture. They just have to do what their told. I don't think it takes much to realize why the rich countries would want to keep this under wraps and to keep the poor countries poor. Who else would make all the food, clothing and stuff we spend our wages on? How would the ones in power have any power if money/greed wasn't our societies driving force? The poor countries keep us rich and vice versa.

Like I said before, just because no one has managed to find the answers to Tesla's free energy, doesn't mean he was wrong. It just means no ones had the same "eureka moment" yet.

You said it would be ridiculous for poor counties to be conspiring with rich countries to keep themselves second class but the poor countries are so dependent on the rich countries

Say, what?! Do you consider Japan, China, Russia to be poor countries? Do you believe that they're dependent on payments from the US to keep going?

If every person in the world had access to unlimited, free energy everyone would be equal, or at least a hell of a lot closer to equal than they are now.

Your average guy would need to purchase food, transportation, technological devices, generators, entertainment. I don't know about you, but for me, direct energy costs aren't in the top five items in my budget.

Like I said before, just because no one has managed to find the answers to Tesla's free energy,

Tesla wasn't working on free energy - he was working on broadcasting power which is totally different.

doesn't mean he was wrong. It just means no ones had the same "eureka moment" yet.

That ain't how science works. It's hard to point to any major discovery in science where there weren't half a dozen other scientists who were also looking in the same direction at the same time.

Say, what?! Do you consider Japan, China, Russia to be poor countries? >Do you believe that they're dependent on payments from the US to >keep going?

No, they would be part of the problem involved in keeping the poorer countries poor and whose interests would benefit from keeping free energy out of the hands of the common person. Sorry if I misread that part of your post.

Your average guy would need to purchase food, transportation, >technological devices, generators, entertainment. I don't know about >you, but for me, direct energy costs aren't in the top five items in my >budget.

Yes but the costs of everything would be massively reduced, to the point of cost being almost negligible, because there would be no energy costs at any point in anythings manufacture. You would be paying for labour and materials only.

It would make the average guy able to grow all his own food (not just what could be grown outside in the ground but anything you wanted, you could have heated greenhouses anywhere). Transportation would only cost to buy the transport itself - not the fuel, it would be a one off payment instead of a constant money-sink.

Tesla wasn't working on free energy - he was working on >broadcasting power which is totally different.

agreed, that wasn't what he was working on but he wasn't far off achieving it non the less.

That ain't how science works. It's hard to point to any major >discovery in science where there weren't half a dozen other scientists >who were also looking in the same direction at the same time.

True, but it only takes one of those half a dozen scientists to imagine a problem in a different way or to think of a new solution for a breakthrough to happen.

I'm sorry, I don't understand why you think Japan benefits from being forced to import vast quantities of energy every year.

How does Japan benefit from keeping the poor countries poor? Surely an export-based country like Japan would benefit hugely if these poor countries would become rich?

I know for a fact that Japan spends oodles of cash on energy research, including way out blue sky research. As a country, they desperately crave energy independence. I cannot understand why you think they would act against their own interests.

Japan doesn't benefit from it but all the other countries/corporations who supply the energy do.

Like ever other capitalist society it has to have different "classes" of people to function. Basically there must be "haves" and "have nots". Thats what drives people to get up in the morning and work those horrible, menial jobs - for the paycheck to try become one of the "haves". It might not depend on poorer countries as much as others but they still will in some way, our whole world is connected now - everyone depends on someone for something.

Japan might crave energy independence but that would be independence from other nations and sources, not independence for individuals. That goes against any governments interests.

The idea that energy poor countries are conspiring with energy rich countries to keep themselves second-class world citizens in ridiculous.

The Truth Behind The Energy Lie (Supression Of Technological Evolution, The Evidence) full movie

Tesla made an instrument to create unlimited energy.

No, Tesla made an instrument that might have been able to broadcast energy wirelessly. Please note that he was eventually shut down because he ran out of money to pay his power bills (and his rent, yes).

Told the state they weren't going to pay taxes and to stay off their land it was protected. They got attacked by special forces.

If I said I wasn't going to pay taxes and that the law did not apply on my land, I'd also be arrested - "free energy" or not.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/18960070/Self-Acting-Engine

to begin with.

Tesla made an instrument that might have been able to broadcast energy wirelessly. Please note that he was eventually shut down because he ran out of money to pay his power bills (and his rent, yes).

You don't happen to know that the project funding was pulled by J.P. Morgan to put the brakes on Tesla's wireless broadcast invention which could not be metered and hence could not be controlled, unlike oil for example ?

Sure I know that. And it actually makes a lot of sense - how, exactly, do you not lose huge sums of money broadcasting power to people when you have no way to collect the bills?

I'd also point out that this would not have been very healthy for humans. Consider the health consequences of merely being under a major power line... where 99.9999% of the energy is safely in a wire and you're only exposed to the magnetic field. Now imagine all the power is being beaming in all directions - going right through your body...

Power lines are DC. The only dangerous form of energy is the one by Edison being forced down our guzzle.

Tesla used perfectly safe AC. Even ran it through his body to power a lightbulb.

Do you have any scientific data to back that up ?

And, do you know anything about Tesla ?

http://therealtwilightzone.co.uk/files/2012/05/tesla-1.jpg

http://static.neatorama.com/images/2010-03/tesla-master-of-lightning.jpg

http://summerburkes.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/tesla-misunderstood-genius.gif

Well when you aren't working, own your land, and are completely self sufficient you should be allowed to do so. Not to mention income tax is unconstitutional....

All taxation is pretty bullshit if you think about it. Gov: "oh we fucked up with YOUR money, so lets all tighten our belts and you guys need to give us more".

Family guy also made a satirical piece based on said events but biased the story towards the state. I'll find the real story for you if your interested. It's quite interesting to see that the gov was willing to lose 3 special forces agents over 2 fucking people; who not only paid their debts to society, they warned the gov to stay the fuck off their land.

What do I need a boiler for? How about cheap power generation? Where I live ,it would be far more feasible, and economic than the three technologies you listed. I could heat my house and water with the residual heat, aside from making far more power than I needed...

Does a boiler count? Don't you have to burn oil or coal or wood? I suppose that counts but no more than lighting a fire for heating or putting an ox on a treadmill for energy. Not really an energy monopoly so much as going back to tried and true methods. In addition the techs I mentioned are completely renewable.

I would burn wood, and I'd spend my summer harvesting it myself, as I have every summer off.

the techs I mentioned are completely renewable.

geothermal, wind, solar

are those really renewable?

doesn't geothermal require an external source of power to run the pumps? where does that power come from?

don't wind turbines require oil?

and i'm almost positive solar panels are made out of all kinds of non-renewable metals, rare earth elements, etc.

is it possible to build and operate geothermal/solar/wind devices without using any non-renewable resources? i don't really know, but i doubt it..

Geothermal works by generating a temperature differential and produces more energy than what it takes to run the pumps, taking the difference from the earths surface. Wind turbines take mantience but that's a silly reason to call it non renewable, by that logic anything made of any material on earth is non renewable because there is a finite amount on earth. If oil based lubricants really rub you wrong there are silica based ones. You can make decent solar panels with silicon, high efficiency ones tend to use germanium, however it is possible to make a solar panel using almost any metal and efficiency is a mater of the amount of effort put into researching it. There is only a finite amount of matter on earth, you have to use it for something and in terms of returns vs. losses renewable energy generation is a pretty damn good investment of those resources.

interesting. i'm not trying to rationalize extending the use of "non-renewables" .. i'm just thinking long-term.

like, if humans generate power, by any currently-known means, for the next, say, 1,000 years, what will be left?

will we still be able to generate power? will the earth be rendered uninhabitable by that point by some man-made phenomenon like pollution, radiation, etc? will we still be able to make some kind of "oil"? will we still be able to generate electricity?

in my opinion, all power generation is non-renewable.

i think it likely that even good electrical conductors, like copper, will likely be extremely hard to come by in the near-future.. let alone the far-away future.

so.. i'm more interested in "music-box" style "power generation".. something that you can build, will last for a LONG LONG time, and you don't need any AC adapters, additional oil, fire, or fuel to make it run.

like maybe waterwheels or windmills, made of wood, that don't require any oil for their entire "service-life".. that barely require any "service".. that will last for a long, long time.

i'm not sure where to look for that kind of stuff, though. but it seems like you might have some idea.. ?

by far the most efficient

solar panels

Something doesn't add up.

Never believe anything that has a multi-trillion dollar motive,

The profits from free energy would dwarf those from fossil fuels. For every entity selling energy, there are multiple entities purchasing it, and they would all profit.

Japan and many other countries are technologically advanced yet energy poor. To believe that they are conspiring to keep themselves down boggles the imagination...

"The profits from free energy would dwarf those from fossil fuels."

How so? If the consumers themselves were making their own energy, then how does anyone profit from that? For example: if we could simply purchase our very own mini fusion reactors, and make our own power, then how does anyone (other than the people selling the reactors and fuel) make any money?

Once the free energy genie is out of the bottle, it's out for good and completely unstoppable. And once that happened, why would anyone, private, public, or otherwise (government), spend a dime on energy from an energy conglomerate, when they can make their own power? Granted, one would need to capital to purchase such a device...

If some sort of zero point energy device is ever created, it will be illegally cloned, and spread like wildfire. People will retrofit it for vehicles, and everything else...

How so? If the consumers themselves were making their own energy, then how does anyone profit from that?

They wouldn't. But the largest consumer of power on the planet is not consumers but industry.

Imagine if Google didn't have to pay for electric power. Imagine if the auto industry didn't have to pay for power to run their plants. Imagine how profitable the air travel industry would be if they didn't have to pay for gas!

Indeed, imagine, and you'll have an idea of why it's so important to maintain the status quo.

Why wouldn't they? Explain the technicalities of that ridiculous notion...

It's revolutionary. There's energy everywhere. It's simply a matter of tapping into it.

It's real, don't listen to the asshats and shills that say otherwise.

If something sounds too good to be true, it usually is.

That said, this would be a good question for r/askscience or r/skeptic.

http://www.rexresearch.com/johnson/1johnson.htm

http://lenr-canr.org/

http://projectcamelot.org/mallove.html

http://newenergytimes.com/

NASA seems to be taking an interest in LENR. Of course, I'm of the opinion they already have energy sources beyond LENR. If the private sector truly builds a functional LENR reactor the implications are significant. Especially at the prices Rossi thinks he can do it at.

People, people, people. Don't you have any skepticism at all?

Let's start with the Japanese. Japan has a fierce sense of national pride - they aren't going to do anything because the rest of the world tells them to.

But they have almost no natural sources of energy.

As a result, they spent a lot of money researching alternative energy sources - including quite a few deeply unconventional sources like cold fusion. I think this is an excellent idea, and they've made some progress in more efficient motors and the like - but they haven't found any "free energy" nor any signs it exists.

If one of these "well-known" alternative sources actually worked, do you think Japan would consent to suppressing it - knowing it would keep them begging at the energy table? Hell, no!

China isn't in the same state at all - but they are still increasingly dependent on foreign energy. Do you think that if any of these other sources worked, the Chinese would respect US patents and not use them? Hell, no!

If there were free energy, the law of conservation of mass/energy would be false. Sure, it's conceivable - these laws are only derived by observation, a new observation could challenge them - but then you'd have to explain how physics has this huge hole in it and still manages to make such incredibly accurate predictions.

If there's one thing the real world teaches you, it's that there's no free lunch.

If there were free energy, the law of conservation of mass/energy would be false.

Can you expand on this ?

The law of conservation of energy states that matter cannot be created or destroyed. If there were a such thing as "free energy" then it would mean that energy can be created out of nothing.

Huh, what experimental proof do you have for this ?

Myself? I don't have any, and I'm not necessarily saying it's true or false. I wwas just defining the law for you. It's simply that there has never been any evidence to suggest that it is false. If there was, the implications would be absolutely groundbreaking and IMO it would be one of the most important scientific discoveries in human history.

I don't have any, and I'm not necessarily saying it's true or false.I wwas just defining the law for you.

Tell me what you know.

It's simply that there has never been any evidence to suggest that it is false.

How do you know ? When you can't even give a cohearent answer to the legitimacy of the law of conservation of mass. Big sounding words aside.

I think they meant the law of Thermodynamics - meaning that energy cannot be created or destroyed. Though, when I see some of these "free energy" experiments, they aren't necessarily "energy from nothing" they are in one way or another using the sun energy/ magnetism/ or other pre-existing sources. Though I have not seen The film that OP speaks of, these are my thoughts on "free energy". "free energy" and "energy from nothing" are 2 very different things.

There is plenty of evidence of aether. That's the source of all energy and much of physics including macroscopic phenomena like gravity. And to hide this an entire new physics was hoisted called quantum physics to keep foolish people in a loop.

Tesla himself wrote plenty about this.

http://www.teslaphysics.com/files/Detection.pdf

http://pesn.com/2011/04/19/9501813_Tesla_Coils_Unleash_Aether/

If it were real we wouldn't be wasting our time with fossil fuels.

Yes, some of Tesla's work was genius. But not all of it.

"If it were real we wouldn't be wasting our time with fossil fuels."

BS! Companies need a tangible commodity to make any substantial amount of money off of energy. With a way to make zero point energy in our own homes, those companies wouldn't make a dime. The entire world would be energy independent, and that just can't be, they would have virtually no control over the masses with real energy independence. There's over 6,000 suppressed technologies, most of them energy related. What do you think UFO's are powered by? Duracell batteries? LOL

I'm not saying zero point energy by definition exists, but I am saying incredibly efficient energy production, bordering on zero point, does...

Where is it?

^ This is spot on. There is also supposedly a secret committee within the US patent office whose sole purpose is to review patent applications for the impact that they would have on commerce. These so called "disruptive technologies" are refused patent protection, shelved, or given to corporate interests. These corporations stockpile these patents for use on a later date. Think about it. Corporations do this the same way the diamond industry locks up a majority of the diamond supply to keep prices high. Why would an oil conglomerate release a clean or efficient technology to solve our energy problems when there is still oil in the ground and massive profits to be made? Oh, and a nice little benefit of the increasing scarcity of oil is that is drives prices up, which in turn allows those same conglomerates to reap even higher profits.

You don't need patent protection to change the world. ಠ_ಠ

Indeed, which just helps to keep us all focused on survival, exactly as they want it...

I'm sure those patents are keeping the Chinese in line! NOT.

Physics major here. Things like fusion reactors exist in one form or another but nowhere near breakeven in terms of energy expenditure. These accomplishments are not hidden under a rock and often are publicly funded by those companies you so detest in conjunction with universities and colleges. Checkout things like the JET which can sustain a fusion reaction for nearly a second! On terms of things like "zero-point" energy the actual physics behind such high energy dense systems is at best theoretical and at worst completely made-up. I don't care how far ahead you think oil companies are but there is no way they have the man power to be several decades ahead of the combined academic forces of the worlds physicists. This isn't something you can repress through some patents or evil councils. It's publicly funded and they post their results online and in journals! You could literally track live the progress of these incredibly efficient energy systems live if you wanted to!

And the Japanese, the Koreans, the Chinese cooperate with this... why? So the US can continue to dominate the world?

Are you saying that physicists are all organized together to provide us with a fake physics where this is impossible?

If your average guy had free energy, how exactly would he be "independent"? Would he be able to grow his own food, make his own television sets?

Industry uses far more energy than consumers do directly. For every energy company that lost money, there would be three other companies that made more money.

We would have free heat, free hot water, free electricity to grow endless amounts of food (and pot) indoors, all year long. Not only that, but we'd have endless amounts of electricity from which to create products and services...

Sure, you'd still need to purchase luxury items, but with just a little bit of hard work, all of life's necessities would be provided (aside from property and shelter).

It would definitely make people's lives much easier if there were free energy - though I think you're underestimating how hard it would be to "grow endless amounts of food indoors" - but nearly all of modern-day industrialism would remain except for the energy industry, which, while huge, is still a small portion of the world's industrial economy.

Anyway, no one's arguing that free energy wouldn't be desirable! The claim is that it doesn't exist, not that we don't want it.

I NEVER SAID IT EXISTED, NEVER...

I was right all along, and I said from nearly the beginning, that sunshine was needed. Yet, you people just love to ignore what isn't convenient. The alloy does act as a catalyst...

"dieselphiend -2 points 13 hours ago What would one call an alloy that cracks water? Also, I should have initially mentioned sunshine is also required..."

See, I (ME, AS IN MOTHERFUCKING ME) mentioned sunshine was needed...

My main point has been from the beginning that energy production (so efficient) bordering (BORDERING) on zero point exists.

What do you think UFO's are powered by?

Pixie dust, happy thoughts and Bigfoot farts.

[deleted]

That video has been debunked...See it here

He astonished the world, revolutionized everything we know about physics, won a bushel basket of Nobel and other prizes, and now his name is a household word.

At least, that's what would happen to someone who proved such a thing as "free energy".

your missing the point of the whole corporate greed scandal and financial control there. free energy completely destroys a trillion dollar industry.

Sounds like a great thing for China to invest in. Or does "Big Oil" have them under their thumbs, too?

Don't forget Japan! China has at least some native sources of energy, Japan has none. That's why they're one of the largest investors in alternative energy...

Yes, Japan is still looking into the whole Cold Fusion thing, no?

Exactly. If it was true T. Boone Pickens would be investing in it.

Because Big Oil and Big Coal and their lobbyists and their bought politicians would TOTALLY let that happen!!

How much influence to "Big Oil" and "Big Coal" have over China? Russia? Cuba? Why don't those nations invest in this wonderful Free Energy technology and show the world just how ass-backward the United States is scientifically?

I've been hearing about the Big Oil conspiracy to do things like suppress the 200mpg carburetor since I was knee-high to a grasshopper, and that song is old and played out.

this. people just WANT it to be true SO BADLY that they are willing to conjure up massive, MASSIVE conspiracies rather than believe that these inventors with the perpetual motion machines are full of it.

i can believe that disruptive technologies are suppressed, but someone somewhere would be rich and famous if they could just market home power plants.

Actually China invests more money in clean energy technology than the U.S. does. I never said that Free Energy technology was something that is in existence today, I merely stated that even if there were Big Oil and Big Coal would bust their asses to suppress it. Hell they already do it to keep the renewable clean energy sources that we do have in our arsenal from the consumer. If you think they aren't spending millions on lobbyists to help grease the wheels of our government than maybe you are the one who is old and played out.

What would one call an alloy that cracks water?

Also, I should have initially mentioned sunshine is also required...

You said it would be ridiculous for poor counties to be conspiring with rich countries to keep themselves second class but the poor countries are so dependent on the rich countries

Say, what?! Do you consider Japan, China, Russia to be poor countries? Do you believe that they're dependent on payments from the US to keep going?

If every person in the world had access to unlimited, free energy everyone would be equal, or at least a hell of a lot closer to equal than they are now.

Your average guy would need to purchase food, transportation, technological devices, generators, entertainment. I don't know about you, but for me, direct energy costs aren't in the top five items in my budget.

Like I said before, just because no one has managed to find the answers to Tesla's free energy,

Tesla wasn't working on free energy - he was working on broadcasting power which is totally different.

doesn't mean he was wrong. It just means no ones had the same "eureka moment" yet.

That ain't how science works. It's hard to point to any major discovery in science where there weren't half a dozen other scientists who were also looking in the same direction at the same time.