Free Energy and its Political Economic Reality

Originally posted by Has2b

Originally posted by NRen2k5

That’s right. Sure, it isn’t a lot of work, but it’s too much work knowing what the result will be. No need to disprove something that hasn’t been “proven.”

Well thanks for the reply. I think you are contributing a massive amount to readers of this thread, by highlighting as a classic example of a stubborn & ignorant attitude.

I hope I’ve highlighted, circled, triple-underlined and stabbed with a dagger the stubborn and ignorant attitudes of the “true believers” of Free Energy here.

You indicate that you have never been prepared to even investigate FE or experiment (even simple ones)... yet you spend so much time arguing (claiming authority) that "it just can't be" and won't look!

BECAUSE IT DOESN’T WORK!!!

Suppose I said that I had a "Magic Teapot," and even though I never put anything into it, I always get tea out of it.

You would call me crazy and lock me up. It works the same with energy as it does with tea.

You refer to us as "kids" given that I am approx Wades age you must be ancient!? Wow it would have been fun observing your tantrums when the Wright brothers claimed that a man made machine would fly or watching you stomp your feet in denial when your Dad told you a 2 wheel bicycle was safe & stable.... gee how do you get around do you have to walk everywhere?

I refer to you as kids because frankly, your attitudes strike me as terribly immature.

Magnets don’t produce energy.

Where did you get that Electrical Eng degree out of a Kellogs packet?
So in a DC or AC generator you think the magnets are an unnecessary component? or just some form of catalyst to change the coal into "electrons"?

From a certain point of view, you’re right the second time there.

Magnets are a means by which you can convert mechanical energy into electrical energy. And yes, this is how generators work; on the flipside of exactly the same principle by which electric motors work. In fact a generator is nothing more than an electric motor being used in the opposite of the normal sense – spinning the rotor to excite electrical current rather than using electrical current to spin the rotor.

Someone with even a high school diploma should realize that you can't magically conjure up energy from nowhere.

That comment is acceptable as based on what is taught based on old knowledge I can understand you and others thinking that such is seemingly logical. Yet when shown a way that you can discover it for yourself you refuse to do so!

I haven’t been shown a way yet. I’ve been shown a way which you think will work but I clearly understand will not. If you’re particularly ingenious and lucky, you can create a system that, when given a little push, can maintain a state of disequilibrium for a surprisingly long time, but ultimately, it will find a state of equilibrium and stop.

.... scared of the consequences? FE is not magically conjured it comes from a source that has always existed, known about for 100yrs+ (Tesla, Keely etc etc ) and SUPRESSED due to economic and political consequences

Really? Then please tell me what this source is. By the way, it isn’t “vacuum energy” a.k.a. “zero point energy.” Create a closed system which can harness the zero point energy from another closed system, and all you really succeed in doing is offsetting the zero point energy of that other closed system to a lower point. And zero point energy is typically so small as to be useless.

Originally posted by Has2b
Trombly's homopolar generator has little to do with ZP! Read first!! before you stick foot in mouth. It is simply a sophisticated extension of Faraday's original coppoer disk generator...

Then it has nothing to do with Free Energy / doesn’t work.

[edit on 31-8-2007 by NRen2k5]

you are old enough to remember when there was no such thing as a rechargeable disposable battery.... I can just imagine what your authoritive mantra was back then... "it won't happen it is not possible"?

Why would I think such a thing? Recharging a battery is much, MUCH more believable than “free energy.”

I realise attempts to steer you to a simple experiment and your obstinate refusal to try it means you won't change your mind. That is OK! I completely accept your right to hold tight to your precious knowledge. BUT how can you speak and pretend offer a"balanced view" when you are not prepared to research , experiment , & approach the subject from both perspectives?

I realise you enjoy drawing ridiculous conclusions. Pity I didn’t decide to tell you to perform a simple experiment first or maybe I could be calling you obstinate. That’s OK! I accept your right to completely reject whatever knowledge you want to. BUT how can you speak and pretend to offer a balanced view when you’re so focused on my attitude rather than cold hard facts?

Originally posted by TheColdDragon
You attempt in one sense to make a Reductio Ad Absurdum, but you yourself do not provide ample evidence in support of the tactic, you merely make personal attacks on the education and character of your fellows in this thread; Criticize their views as juvenile, accuse them of gullibility, tell them to go back to school, etc.

You’re right. Forget about my field of expertise. I’ll just decide as they do that I know everything there is to know about some other subject which I have absolutely no education or training in. Hmm. Architecture? No wait… how about zoology? Yes. Today I know absolutely everything about zoology. The Hamster is the closest evolutionary relative to Man! All the signs are there! Just like humans, hamsters have eyes, a nose, ears and a mouth. Why that’s four things we have in common! By God I must be right!

Your Argument from Authority is that you are an Electrical Engineer, the desired inferrance being that this gives you professional knowledge over what is and is not possible with electric systems. Are you the proud holder of a PHD? Bachelor's degree? Master's? Really, the answer to these questions are meaningless.

How so?

Any educated individual knows that there is just as much foolish conceit at the top as there is ignorant conceit at the bottom. You provide example of this by your behavior.

Oh, there’s plenty more ignorant conceit at the bottom, and this thread is a glaring example of that.

As Wade has said, you are merely a self-proclaimed troll.

That you’re even paying attention to Wade at this point is further evidence of your gullibility.

Do you come here to ATS to shed light on how ignorant the classical conspiracist is?

This isn’t classical conspiracy theory. This is outright fantasy.

What is your goal here, that you so tenaciously deride those present who either have personal experience in the matter, or are willing to discuss the possibility that the laws of thermodynamics as understood by the general populace may be more flexible and less absolute?

I already stated my goal here.

All anybody has to do to convince me that Free Energy is real is to produce it himself. Build a system and show me that the total output is greater than the total input. It’s as simple as that.

Still busy working on the earlier post but this was worth responding too.

Originally posted by NRen2k5
That’s right. Sure, it isn’t a lot of work, but it’s too much work knowing what the result will be.

Knowing?

Is it, really?

Never bothering to study contrary views does seem to imply that you have agenda. Does intelligence really have to avoid checking facts that clearly can't disprove their position? If this won't take much time and your sure it won't work what's keeping you from spending some of the time you would be posting on building that model?

No need to disprove something that hasn’t been “proven.”

Well it has not been 'proven' where the electricity that powers loads really come from; well not in mainstream science at least. How can you ask us to disprove something that has not been proven?

Magnets don’t produce energy.

No they do not but they do seem to gate it from somewhere hence their inclusion in ALL apparatus that powers loads directly? Do you think this is some kind of coincidence perhaps? What exactly is the function of magnets in generators according to your knowledge?

Someone with even a high school diploma should realize that you can't magically conjure up energy from nowhere.

Well interestingly our current model of the universe has led physicists to conjure up 'dark energy' and a host of other subsets to fill the gap ( 90% or so of the mass) they require to make their chosen model work. If you want to point fingers so can i as i seem to be in the most educated of company.

As far as the research goes i don't think many of them suggest that they are 'creating' energy and most have indicated that they believe they are simply tapping what has always been there; not tapping wind, solar or tidal power does not mean there is no atmosphere, sunlight or rivers and oceans.

You too. Make sure you tin foil hat doesn’t come loose!

You don't like Sefton had to say but you never addressed the following:

This account obviously does not explain much about the circuit.
Indeed, in the Feynman lectures we read:4
‘‘We ask what happens in a piece of resistance
wire when it is carrying a current. Since the wire
has resistance, there is an electric field along it,
driving the current. Because there is a potential
drop along the wire, there is also an electric field
just outside the wire, parallel to the surface ~Fig.
27-5!. There is, in addition, a magnetic field
which goes around the wire because of the current.
The E and B are at right angles; therefore
there is a Poynting vector directed radially inward,
as shown in the figure. There is a flow of
energy into the wire all around. It is of course,
equal to the energy being lost in the wire in the
form of heat. So our ‘‘crazy’’ theory says that the
electrons are getting their energy to generate heat
because of the energy flowing into the wire from
the field outside. Intuition would seem to tell us
that the electrons get their energy from being
pushed along the wire, so the energy should be
flowing down ~or up! along the wire. But the
theory says that the electrons are really being
pushed by an electric field, which has come from
some charges very far away, and that the electrons
get their energy for generating heat from
these fields. The energy somehow flows from the
distant charges into a wide area of space and then
inward to the wire.’’ ~emphasis added!.

However, the result of such an application
and the resulting energy transfer in the circuit apparently did
not satisfy Feynman. He wrote: ‘‘this theory is obviously
nuts, somehow energy flows from the battery to infinity and
then back into the load, is really strange.’’4 Feynman, however,
did not persist and left the problem for others to find a
reasonable explanation. Can we say more about energy transfer
in this simple circuit?

sites.huji.ac.il...

I propose ( Tom Bearden and many others really) that the energy does in fact flow from the battery and that most continues to infinity while only that fraction of 1% that moves almost perpendicular to the circuit wires are intercepted to power the load. Maybe our physics models are right and there really exists that 90% + of dark energy that is somehow being integrated into usable from by magnets?

Stellar

Originally posted by StellarX
Well it has not been 'proven' where the electricity that powers loads really come from; well not in mainstream science at least.

There you go again with that BS.

en.wikipedia.org...

Magnets don’t produce energy.

No they do not but they do seem to gate it from somewhere hence their inclusion in ALL apparatus that powers loads directly? Do you think this is some kind of coincidence perhaps?

Oh boy. What are you trying to get at now?

What exactly is the function of magnets in generators according to your knowledge?

To excite electrical current from torque.

Someone with even a high school diploma should realize that you can't magically conjure up energy from nowhere.

Well interestingly our current model of the universe has led physicists to conjure up 'dark energy' and a host of other subsets to fill the gap ( 90% or so of the mass) they require to make their chosen model work. If you want to point fingers so can i as i seem to be in the most educated of company.

And how dense is “dark energy?” Much, muuuch less so than stars’ energy.

As far as the research goes i don't think many of them suggest that they are 'creating' energy and most have indicated that they believe they are simply tapping what has always been there; not tapping wind, solar or tidal power does not mean there is no atmosphere, sunlight or rivers and oceans.

They aren’t tapping squat. They’re theorizing on the nature of an as-of-yet unknown variable that is required for their theoretical models to work.

You too. Make sure you tin foil hat doesn’t come loose!

You don't like Sefton had to say but you never addressed the following:

This account obviously does not explain much about the circuit.
Indeed, in the Feynman lectures we read:4
‘‘We ask what happens in a piece of resistance
wire when it is carrying a current. Since the wire
has resistance, there is an electric field along it,
driving the current. Because there is a potential
drop along the wire, there is also an electric field
just outside the wire, parallel to the surface ~Fig.
27-5!. There is, in addition, a magnetic field
which goes around the wire because of the current.
The E and B are at right angles; therefore
there is a Poynting vector directed radially inward,
as shown in the figure. There is a flow of
energy into the wire all around. It is of course,
equal to the energy being lost in the wire in the
form of heat. So our ‘‘crazy’’ theory says that the
electrons are getting their energy to generate heat
because of the energy flowing into the wire from
the field outside. Intuition would seem to tell us
that the electrons get their energy from being
pushed along the wire, so the energy should be
flowing down ~or up! along the wire. But the
theory says that the electrons are really being
pushed by an electric field, which has come from
some charges very far away, and that the electrons
get their energy for generating heat from
these fields. The energy somehow flows from the
distant charges into a wide area of space and then
inward to the wire.’’ ~emphasis added!.

However, the result of such an application
and the resulting energy transfer in the circuit apparently did
not satisfy Feynman. He wrote: ‘‘this theory is obviously
nuts, somehow energy flows from the battery to infinity and
then back into the load, is really strange.’’4 Feynman, however,
did not persist and left the problem for others to find a
reasonable explanation. Can we say more about energy transfer
in this simple circuit?

sites.huji.ac.il...

Relate that crazy talk to Free Energy and I’ll give you a cookie. Otherwise I’ll just take it for what it is: Crazy talk AND obfuscation.

I propose ( Tom Bearden and many others really) that the energy does in fact flow from the battery and that most continues to infinity while only that fraction of 1% that moves almost perpendicular to the circuit wires are intercepted to power the load.

Relate that crazy talk to Free Energy and I’ll give you a cookie. Otherwise I’ll just take it for what it is: Crazy talk AND obfuscation.

Maybe our physics models are right and there really exists that 90% + of dark energy that is somehow being integrated into usable from by magnets?

No. Magnets are already well understood and it has nothing to do with “dark energy”.

en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by NRen2k5

You’re right. Forget about my field of expertise. I’ll just decide as they do that I know everything there is to know about some other subject which I have absolutely no education or training in. Hmm. Architecture? No wait… how about zoology? Yes. Today I know absolutely everything about zoology. The Hamster is the closest evolutionary relative to Man! All the signs are there! Just like humans, hamsters have eyes, a nose, ears and a mouth. Why that’s four things we have in common! By God I must be right!

Indeed, let us forget about your field of expertise, because citing your degree does not an argument make. You are no more believed because you have a piece of paper than you are if you do not, unless you ascribe to the nonsense that is appealing to authority.

The merit of a scientist is based upon his ability to test theories and hypotheses, not upon what a college has sanctioned his profession to be. A scientist does not make claims, a scientist TESTS. If the scientist does not have the time to test, the scientist should not make claims without putting forward the effort.

As such, you should not ridicule and deride individuals for believing that some variances of Free Energy are possible. It is not your place, and it is rude and presumptuous.

How so?

That you have a degree does not make you competent in the subject matter of your degree. It merely means you've been provided some ample training in the information and details of the field. And I assure you, some of your ample training was wasted training, as some of that training was based off of false assumptions and conceits of the field. Every field of expertise imaginable is the same.

Your teachers were not infallible nor all knowing, and neither are you. I assure you, they were wrong on some matters but will not know they were for some time.

Oh, there’s plenty more ignorant conceit at the bottom, and this thread is a glaring example of that.

And thus you elevate yourself again, arguing from a point of conceit and authority and denegrating those present with your snobbery and superiority.

You aren't making arguments as much as personal attacks. Address the issue, not the people talking about the issue.

That you’re even paying attention to Wade at this point is further evidence of your gullibility.

I begin to think you have nothing in your bag of tricks except hot air. Wade is wise to ignore such people.

This isn’t classical conspiracy theory. This is outright fantasy.

Landing on the moon is silly, it's made of cheese.

I already stated my goal here.

If you have, I must have missed it. Is it something beyond namecalling and slavering the thread with character attacks, whether they refer to references presented or those citing such references?

All anybody has to do to convince me that Free Energy is real is to produce it himself. Build a system and show me that the total output is greater than the total input. It’s as simple as that.

I cry BS. You wouldn't give anyone claiming it the time of day, much less the benefit of the doubt to actually watch a demonstration. People could cite and declare substantive evidence for it, but I have my doubts you'd change your tune.

Which again begs the question as to why you participate in this conversation, because I see nothing but trolling going on. There has not been one post from you in this thread that I actually perceived any sort of cohesive argument or substance from.


Yet to give you the benefit of the doubt, I will ask this; Is the Law of Thermodynamics infallible and immutable and can it be violated or circumvented?

Originally posted by NRen2k5
There you go again with that BS.

en.wikipedia.org...

You are still not acknowledging the fact that that the energy that powers a circuit falls into it from the outside of it and in fact never enters the wires. How exactly are the chemical energy inside the battery being transferred to outside the battery and all around the circuit in all directions?

Oh boy. What are you trying to get at now?

Not 'getting at' anything as i believe i made it quite clear..

To excite electrical current from torque.

Torque?

And how dense is “dark energy?” Much, muuuch less so than stars’ energy.

It's clear that your no cosmologist. What we are currently observing in the universe is supposedly just 5%-10% of the mas required for our current models to work so they are looking for the rest; Obviously it must be there as the model can't be wrong.

They aren’t tapping squat.

Well:

Concepts

The generator moves an electric current, but does not create electric charge, which is already present in the conductive wire of its windings. It is somewhat analogous to a water pump, which creates a flow of water but does not create the water inside. Other types of electrical generators exist, based on other electrical phenomena such as piezoelectricity, and magnetohydrodynamics. The construction of a dynamo is similar to that of an electric motor, and all common types of dynamos could work as motors.

en.wikipedia.org...

Objection 1 is that that electrons are just too slow to carry the energy fast enough! When the switch is closed the light globe comes on almost at once. Many text books discuss a model of electrical
conduction in which a “gas” or “sea” or electrons is pushed slowly along a wire by an electric field.
If you know the density of electrons (the number of conduction electrons per volume of wire), the
diameter of the wire and a typical current you can work out how fast the electron sea moves along.
In a typical example of a 1mm copper wire carrying a current of 100 mA the answer turns out to be
about 0.01 mm.s-1 which is much slower than a tortoise. If those electrons were picking up energy
from the battery and then carrying it all the way to the light globe, you would have to wait an
awfully long time to see the globe light up.

science.uniserve.edu.au...

So we know that according to our current models the energy is all ready present and must just be 'delivered' to the bulb. Can you show that the calculations done by sefton is in incorrect and if not how does the bulb light up ? How is it powered if the electrons can't possibly be arriving so fast?

They’re theorizing on the nature of an as-of-yet unknown variable that is required for their theoretical models to work.

They are commenting on observables that simply does not correspond to the models we current employ.

Relate that crazy talk to Free Energy and I’ll give you a cookie. Otherwise I’ll just take it for what it is: Crazy talk AND obfuscation.

Well it basically shows that whatever is powering the load is moving there at probably the speed of light and doing so by 'falling' towards the circuit wire and basically using it as guide. That in itself is very interesting but what is even more interesting is that the load will briefly be powered even if the circuit is not closed because whatever is powering the load does not need the circuit to propagate itself!

Relate that crazy talk to Free Energy and I’ll give you a cookie. Otherwise I’ll just take it for what it is: Crazy talk AND obfuscation.

You have not addressed the claims and i can see that you are even running out of non standard 'excuses'.

No. Magnets are already well understood and it has nothing to do with “dark energy”.

en.wikipedia.org...

Magnets are NOT well understood and their capability to do work without depleting a accepted 'source' speaks volumes as to that reality. Once again i ask why generators and batteries create dipoles when permanent magnet is nothing but a dipole.

All magnets appear to have at least one north pole (reckoned positive) and at least one south pole (reckoned negative), and the net pole strength of every magnet is zero. Despite their apparent reality, as suggested by the image at the top of the page, where iron filings concentrate in regions of large magnetic field, poles are not physical objects on or in the magnet. They are simply a useful concept for describing magnets. Rather than poles being the fundamental unit, it is the magnetic dipole that is the fundamental unit. A magnetic dipole can be thought of as a combination of a positive and a negative pole that are microscopically close to one another and inseparable. This is not a bad description of the magnetic dipole of an electron in a magnetic material.

en.wikipedia.org...

What is the fascination with creating dipoles and why can permanent magnets ( permanent dipoles) keep on doing work?

Most modern generators with field coils feature a capability known as self-excitation where some of the power output from the rotor is

diverted to power the field coils. Additionally the rotor or stator contains a small amount of magnetizable metal, which retains a very

weak residual magnetism when the generator is turned off. The generator is turned on with no load connected, and the initial weak field

creates a weak flow in the field coils, which in turn begins to slightly affect the rotor to begin to produce current that then further

strengthens the field. This feedback loop continues to increase field voltage and output power until the generator reaches its full

operating output level.

This initial self-excitation feedback process does not work if the generator is started connected to a load, as the load will quickly

dissipate the slight power production of the initial field buildup process.

en.wikipedia.org...

"Self excitation" is over unity by another name but i suppose we must maintain the pretense that it ain't so! Is it not amazing how reality can be hidden in plain sight?

Stellar

[edit on 31-8-2007 by StellarX]

Originally posted by StellarX

Originally posted by NRen2k5
There you go again with that BS.

en.wikipedia.org...

You are still not acknowledging the fact that that the energy that powers a circuit falls into it from the outside of it and in fact never enters the wires.

Of course not, because that isn’t the fact.

How exactly are the chemical energy inside the battery being transferred to outside the battery and all around the circuit in all directions?

That’s your assertion, not mine. The way a battery is understood by the rest of the world – you know, sane electrical-minded folk – chemical reaction excites a flow of electrons through whatever conductor you connect to the poles.

To excite electrical current from torque.

Torque?

torque 1 (tôrk) Pronunciation Key
n.

1. The moment of a force; the measure of a force's tendency to produce torsion and rotation about an axis, equal to the vector product of the radius vector from the axis of rotation to the point of application of the force and the force vector.
2. A turning or twisting force.


tr.v. torqued, torqu·ing, torques
To impart torque to.


[From Latin torquere, to twist; see terkw- in Indo-European roots.]

torqu'er n., torque'y adj.

- American Heritage Dictionary

And how dense is “dark energy?” Much, muuuch less so than stars’ energy.

It's clear that your no cosmologist.

What we are currently observing in the universe is supposedly just 5%-10% of the mas required for our current models to work so they are looking for the rest; Obviously it must be there as the model can't be wrong.

And you’re obfuscating again.

They aren’t tapping squat.

Well:

Concepts

The generator moves an electric current, but does not create electric charge, which is already present in the conductive wire of its windings. It is somewhat analogous to a water pump, which creates a flow of water but does not create the water inside. Other types of electrical generators exist, based on other electrical phenomena such as piezoelectricity, and magnetohydrodynamics. The construction of a dynamo is similar to that of an electric motor, and all common types of dynamos could work as motors.

en.wikipedia.org...

Objection 1 is that that electrons are just too slow to carry the energy fast enough! When the switch is closed the light globe comes on almost at once. Many text books discuss a model of electrical
conduction in which a “gas” or “sea” or electrons is pushed slowly along a wire by an electric field.
If you know the density of electrons (the number of conduction electrons per volume of wire), the
diameter of the wire and a typical current you can work out how fast the electron sea moves along.
In a typical example of a 1mm copper wire carrying a current of 100 mA the answer turns out to be
about 0.01 mm.s-1 which is much slower than a tortoise. If those electrons were picking up energy
from the battery and then carrying it all the way to the light globe, you would have to wait an
awfully long time to see the globe light up.

science.uniserve.edu.au...

So we know that according to our current models the energy is all ready present and must just be 'delivered' to the bulb. Can you show that the calculations done by sefton is in incorrect and if not how does the bulb light up ?

Sefton’s entire theory is incorrect. WHY DO YOU KEEP BRINGING UP SEFTON!? Do you enjoy being ridiculed?!

How is it powered if the electrons can't possibly be arriving so fast?

That’s your question to answer, because it’s your dingbat source, dimwit!

They’re theorizing on the nature of an as-of-yet unknown variable that is required for their theoretical models to work.

They are commenting on observables that simply does not correspond to the models we current employ.

Yes. They’re not harnessing it like you said earlier. My but you’re a bold fellow to think you can get away with being wrong so often and then contradicting yourself later.

Relate that crazy talk to Free Energy and I’ll give you a cookie. Otherwise I’ll just take it for what it is: Crazy talk AND obfuscation.

You have not addressed the claims and i can see that you are even running out of non standard 'excuses'.

I DON’T ADDRESS NONSENSE! YOU CAN GO PISS UP A ROPE!

No. Magnets are already well understood and it has nothing to do with “dark energy”.

en.wikipedia.org...

Magnets are NOT well understood and their capability to do work without depleting a accepted 'source' speaks volumes as to that reality.

NO! NO NO NO NO NO!!!! Magnets don’t do work without depleting a source of energy. A spring is the purely mechanical equivalent of a magnet. You push against it and it pushes back.

Once again i ask why generators and batteries create dipoles when permanent magnet is nothing but a dipole.

You didn’t ask that to begin with!!!

All magnets appear to have at least one north pole (reckoned positive) and at least one south pole (reckoned negative), and the net pole strength of every magnet is zero. Despite their apparent reality, as suggested by the image at the top of the page, where iron filings concentrate in regions of large magnetic field, poles are not physical objects on or in the magnet. They are simply a useful concept for describing magnets. Rather than poles being the fundamental unit, it is the magnetic dipole that is the fundamental unit. A magnetic dipole can be thought of as a combination of a positive and a negative pole that are microscopically close to one another and inseparable. This is not a bad description of the magnetic dipole of an electron in a magnetic material.

en.wikipedia.org...

What is the fascination with creating dipoles and why can permanent magnets ( permanent dipoles) keep on doing work?

They’re not doing work!

Most modern generators with field coils feature a capability known as self-excitation where some of the power output from the rotor is

diverted to power the field coils. Additionally the rotor or stator contains a small amount of magnetizable metal, which retains a very

weak residual magnetism when the generator is turned off. The generator is turned on with no load connected, and the initial weak field

creates a weak flow in the field coils, which in turn begins to slightly affect the rotor to begin to produce current that then further

strengthens the field. This feedback loop continues to increase field voltage and output power until the generator reaches its full

operating output level.

This initial self-excitation feedback process does not work if the generator is started connected to a load, as the load will quickly

dissipate the slight power production of the initial field buildup process.

en.wikipedia.org...

"Self excitation" is over unity by another name but i suppose we must maintain the pretense that it ain't so! Is it not amazing how reality can be hidden in plain sight?

It APPEARS to be overunity. But as stated, with any load, self excitation won’t occur. Go figure.

Oh wait. Why don’t YOU explain to ME why it doesn’t work?

You love wasting my time with questions like that.…

[edit on 31-8-2007 by NRen2k5]

Hi TheColdDragon:

Thanks for your observations. I will try to answer the ones that I am able to. I am not trying to awaken the asleep, which is one reason why I will not waste much time with the trolls and others who do not seem to be awake or trying to awaken (as one pal said, the trolls are trying to drag people into their hell). There are several groups that I once thought might be awake or willing to awaken, but I was wrong, at least regarding their awakening to free energy, abundance and a healed planet.

www.ahealedplanet.net...

There are really two groups of people who I am trying to engage. However, the most important attribute of those I am trying to engage is personal integrity, which I admit is not easy to find. In fact, when I discovered the hard way that personal integrity was the world’s scarcest commodity, it was the worst news I could have received:

www.ahealedplanet.net...

But that is paradoxically the good news too, because it does not take many people of high integrity to make a huge difference on this planet. The first group that I am looking for are those who are awake to a great deal of how the world really works and want to make a difference, but do not have experience in the FE field. Gaining experience in that field can be hazardous to one’s health, and I had hoped to lend people the benefit of my experience. However, experience is perhaps the only teacher, so that is part of the conundrum. For those people, I am trying to get across the idea that energy runs the world and is the basis for all real economies and always has been.

www.ahealedplanet.net...

For them, most of the “radical” stuff on my site is not news to them, as they have already escaped the most crippling indoctrination (AKA mind-crutches) that people are subject to:

www.ahealedplanet.net...

so learning about the reality of FE and its potential should not present many obstacles. They do not have to give up many of their teddy bears to “get it.”

The second group, and this is probably more the one you have in mind, are those who have been slowly questioning their indoctrination and are waking up from it. A lot of waking up in America has been happening since 9/11, although it seemed to drive most Americans further asleep. For those people, the research and analysis that I have put into my site can be very pertinent to their awakening process. For an American, my American Empire essay can be revelatory:

www.ahealedplanet.net...

and in fact, it is the most popular essay on my site (followed closely by my “conspiracy” essay: www.ahealedplanet.net... ). I actually wish that my “conspiracy” essay was not as popular as it is (at least in comparison to the rest of my site), but I can’t do much about that.

As is evident by this thread’s title, I am seeking to have a discussion of the political-economic dynamics of free energy, and as you can see, that topic has not really been discussed much on this thread, with troll fighting, question begging and such. In order to have a productive discussion about my chosen topic, people generally have to lay aside these two notions:

1. Free energy is contrary to the “laws of physics” and therefore impossible.
2. The suppression of free energy is an unbelievable conspiracy theory.

Until people can get past those two objections, a productive conversation about the political-economic dynamics of free energy is not feasible. So, I present plenty of information that people can pursue to get beyond the “laws of physics” objection:

www.ahealedplanet.net...

I also present plenty of information that people can pursue to get beyond their “conspiracy theory” objection:

www.ahealedplanet.net...

those two objections trap most of the "educated" into not comprehending the big picture. I direct people to where they can have EXPERIENCES for themselves that can demolish those two objections, such as going to watch exotic technology in action (whether ET or not):

www.ahealedplanet.net...

but investigating the “conspiracies” is a dangerous game:

www.ahealedplanet.net...

so it is difficult to get safe experience in that milieu, which is also part of the conundrum. Long ago, I stopped trying to engage the general public, because they largely ARE asleep and do not even want to try overcoming those two basic objections, as well as all their other dysfunctions. As StellarX points out repeatedly, the often sorry state of the collective public mind is partly due to generations of conditioning. Bucky Fuller had similar things to say:

www.ahealedplanet.net...

That is why I gave up posting to general public forums long ago. I am looking for needles in haystacks, and my posts at ATS comprise an attempt to find some of them. Not the hundred heroes of FE, mind you:

www.ahealedplanet.net...

but just people who are willing to THINK about the issues. We’ll see how it goes. This thread has already been going down the rabbit hole, and I am not sure how to resurrect it. A serious impediment to engaging the public is the trolls and others who do their best to keep people asleep and easily manipulated.

I am going to be out of town for the next week, and will respond to new posts when I get back.

Be well,

Wade


[edit on 1-9-2007 by wadefrazier3]

[edit on 1-9-2007 by wadefrazier3]

[edit on 1-9-2007 by wadefrazier3]

Originally posted by NRen2k5

I already stated my goal here.

All anybody has to do to convince me that Free Energy is real is to produce it himself. Build a system and show me that the total output is greater than the total input. It’s as simple as that.

How can such be anything but a bare faced lie and deception?

(You have stated several times you KNOW it doesn't and cannot exist! and clearly state you would not even waste 2 hours of your own time investigating it ! I suppose that person would have to bring their device(s) to you?

For benefit of the not so closed minded readers!: I started out with very healthy skepticism about FE. I politely approached some persons in Australia who claimed to have produced FE devices. I explained I had an open mind but would like the opportunity to see it with my own eyes! The first trip necessitated travelling over 1600 miles and WOW! was it worth it!!!

"Noruckinidea05"... sadly you may never discover it because you have already closed your mind!!

Anyway shouldn't hold you up from all the other important business you must feel compelled to do perhaps telling those other "nutters" on ATS that aliens and antigravity craft is total BS!, and that the official 911 story is really really THE TRUTH, and the WMD's were there in Iraq and AQ OBL and Sadam were the worlds main problem?????

Gee you must be busy! maybe you should ask the US govt to pay you for your time!? But then again you would have to get a lot lot better at mounting a credible argument!

Originally posted by Has2b

Originally posted by NRen2k5

I already stated my goal here.

All anybody has to do to convince me that Free Energy is real is to produce it himself. Build a system and show me that the total output is greater than the total input. It’s as simple as that.

How can such be anything but a bare faced lie and deception?

(You have stated several times you KNOW it doesn't and cannot exist! and clearly state you would not even waste 2 hours of your own time investigating it ! I suppose that person would have to bring their device(s) to you?

Yes. Would you want anything less yourself, especially considering the nature of these charlatans’ claims?

At the very least, I might settle for a video showing the machine opened up and tested which doesn’t show any signs of doctoring. But even then I’m opening myself to the possibility of being duped by fake measuring equipment.

Ideally, yes, I’d like to see a “Free Energy” machine for myself and test it with my own DMM, tachometer, etc.

For benefit of the not so closed minded readers!: I started out with very healthy skepticism about FE. I politely approached some persons in Australia who claimed to have produced FE devices. I explained I had an open mind but would like the opportunity to see it with my own eyes! The first trip necessitated travelling over 1600 miles and WOW! was it worth it!!!

I bet they put on quite a show. Which is just what it was – a show.

That’s the problem with these charlatans when people start to believe them. You have to test their work on your own terms to get the proper results, but of course the second you do that...
They’ll pull a Newman. They’ll tell you you screwed up and tested the machine wrong, and that’s why your tests show it is under-unity, not because – GOD FORBID! - it actually is under-unity.

"Noruckinidea05"... sadly you may never discover it because you have already closed your mind!!

Oh, I have an open mind, just not so open than my rucking brains have fallen out!!

Anyway shouldn't hold you up from all the other important business you must feel compelled to do perhaps telling those other "nutters" on ATS that aliens and antigravity craft is total BS!

The existence of aliens isn’t something that can be clinically tested or proven short of actually talking to one and performing a few medical tests. Still, the odds are overwhelmingly in favour of there being aliens out there, and there are too many semi-credible stories about UFOs and aliens going around for it to be total bunk that they’ve actually dropped by to check out the neighbourhood.

As for antigravity, there’s no real reason yet to even believe such a thing is possible, though I do think it may be. But any craft (or UFO if you will) that appears to be using “antigravity” may well just be using some form of propulsion we don’t understand yet.

For example, TV show Mythbusters did an episode on antigravity a while back. They had one device which startled them and really did appear to be demonstrating “antigravity” when they first powered it up, but they later determined it operated on the principle of ionic wind.

and that the official 911 story is really really THE TRUTH, and the WMD's were there in Iraq and AQ OBL and Sadam were the worlds main problem?

Of course not. But the conspiracies surrounding those are so young. We need time to separate the wheat from the chaff. And just imagine the stories some people will be willing to tell when they retire or resign in a few years, or even just at the end of Dubya’s term.

Gee you must be busy! maybe you should ask the US govt to pay you for your time!?

But then again you would have to get a lot lot better at mounting a credible argument!

And what would you guys know about “credible”? Not to call you stupid, but have you earned any degrees in engineering or in any of the sciences? How about Stellar? Do you buy any of what Stellar is saying on the topic?

Seeing a conspiracy in everything is a good start, but it isn’t taking your potential very far. It’s a destructive rather than constructive way of thinking. Not to mention, without a foundation in actual knowledge, your opinion on a lot of matters really doesn’t count for much. I mean seriously, for all anybody knows, Dick Cheney may be one of the most brilliant politicians in the world. But would you have him fix your car? For all you know, I could be the chairman of the IEEE, but would you have me fix a leaky pipe in your basement?

You’ll notice I don’t say very much on other topics on ATS. That’s because I don’t know very much. Stellar should exercise the same amount of control. And you and TheColdDragon should quit taking pot shots and actually contribute to the discussion.

[edit on 2-9-2007 by NRen2k5]

You’ll notice I don’t say very much on other topics on ATS. That’s because I don’t know very much. Stellar should exercise the same amount of control. And you and TheColdDragon should quit taking pot shots and actually contribute to the discussion.

I would not say that I was taking pot shots as much as pointing out both your rude behavior, as well as the general lack of logic in your responses. It is obvious that you've never formally debated to any great length, but that is forgivable.

On the matter of your field of expertise, I tend to take the long view on most things. When considering the span of the history of the universe, extrapolating with the apparent vastness of diversity and general wonder that we have as yet to run out of things to discover or redress due to misconstrued interpretation, I cannot hold much faith in any tennets others put forward with absolutist claims.

You claim that you want to be shown such a device, but in your heart of hearts you have convinced yourself it is impossible and nonsense and would never waste the time of day to spend giving the benefit of the doubt.

Matter can't be created or destroyed, yet here is the universe existing and coming out of what?

Feynman, who was quoted earlier in this conversation, was probably one of the wiser physicists to have ever lived. Not to mention something of a comedian. No matter, though, his views are taken very seriously in hard science circles... what boggles my mind is that you snubbed your nose at the man earlier on in this thread, as if you didn't even care who Feynman was.

I imagine looking back, a hundred years from now, and wondering how anyone could believe that certain things were impossible, that reality was even remotely understood and plotted out by rules and structure. Science as we know it spans less than a single century, a mere fraction of human history, and less than an eyelash upon the eye of all that is.

Rather than preach about what isn't possible, why not spend your time imagining what might be? If mankind limited its reach to what was at hand, we certainly wouldn't be speaking where we are now.

Originally posted by TheColdDragon

You’ll notice I don’t say very much on other topics on ATS. That’s because I don’t know very much. Stellar should exercise the same amount of control. And you and TheColdDragon should quit taking pot shots and actually contribute to the discussion.

I would not say that I was taking pot shots as much as pointing out both your rude behavior, as well as the general lack of logic in your responses. It is obvious that you've never formally debated to any great length, but that is forgivable.

Right, well this is only the internet, after all.

It’s tough to keep a straight face, let alone a high level of thought, when you read such claims as magnets deriving their power from dark energy.

You claim that you want to be shown such a device, but in your heart of hearts you have convinced yourself it is impossible and nonsense and would never waste the time of day to spend giving the benefit of the doubt.

Look at it this way too: If I understake such a project expecting it to fail, how do you think I will make it succeed? At what point is it appropriate for me to give up and honestly say I gave it my best shot?

It would be much more ingenuous for someone who claims to have a working perpetual motion or free energy machine to bring it to a sceptic such as myself for testing.

Matter can't be created or destroyed, yet here is the universe existing and coming out of what?

Good question, but that tenet holds true for now. If you were asserting that the universe came from nothing, then you would be on to something. But merely asking the question doesn’t challenge that “matter can’t be created or destroyed.”

Feynman, who was quoted earlier in this conversation, was probably one of the wiser physicists to have ever lived. Not to mention something of a comedian. No matter, though, his views are taken very seriously in hard science circles... what boggles my mind is that you snubbed your nose at the man earlier on in this thread, as if you didn't even care who Feynman was.

Stellar is the one I snubbed my nose at. Time and again he cites exotic sources as if he thinks they somehow prove him right. However he’s mostly trying to obfuscate the issue and he’s pretty transparent.

I imagine looking back, a hundred years from now, and wondering how anyone could believe that certain things were impossible, that reality was even remotely understood and plotted out by rules and structure. Science as we know it spans less than a single century, a mere fraction of human history, and less than an eyelash upon the eye of all that is.

Rather than preach about what isn't possible, why not spend your time imagining what might be? If mankind limited its reach to what was at hand, we certainly wouldn't be speaking where we are now.

Without its limits, nothing in Science would be properly validated.

TheColdDragon, you’re a very strong philsophical thinker; I’ll give you that. As much as my responses seem argumentative I do find this conversation enlightening.

That is one of the nicer things said about me in quite some time, I thank you for the compliment, but I try and approach any matter from a socratic POV.

I must confess that I myself am not entirely certain which side of the fence I sit on. I am not adverse to the possibility that the rules governing energy transferrence, as well as potential creation of or utilization of such might need to be rewritten. I am uncertain if this means my mind is so open that it has fallen out, but I do not believe that I am gullible as much as eagerly hopeful for some amount of change in the way things are done.

Entertaining Wade's copious experience, of which is largely what is cited in this entire thread, I must say that IF the stories as related are true THEN it necessitates finding some workaround to submit the Big Reveal in a way that allows accessibility to a wide range of engineers and scientists in order that they may refute it and test it themselves.

The primary problem with any such endeavor as Free Energy (Or Energy Freedom, as it were) is that you have a cascading effect upon society. The immediate effect would be to render Big Oil impotent; the result of which would put thousands out of jobs. If the device was portable, many more thousands would be put out of jobs in the rural and city-wide energy production and service departments.

There is a correlation with the G.R.I.N. technologies as proposed by Ray Kurzweil, that certain abundance will invariably be highly disruptive to society. One can witness such as true with the consolidation of the majority of the world's wealth in the top 2% of the population. It is not that the world cannot provide for all, it is that there are those who have a vested interest in it NOT providing for all. They are the wealthy who are mentally conditioned to accept the idea that in order for their wealth to increase (A greater egypt than my father), others must suffer and pay. Money flows towards them, not away from them, and to render their models obsolete is a direct threat to their psychological self. To whom they view themselves to be.

Wade is right that there is deep psychological roots in scarcity, that I will give him wholeheartedly. But what Wade forgets is that the birth of any great revolution in technology or the body politic, there is almost always blood spilled.

No birth of the future can occurr without such. In physics, we call this an equivalency law; for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Punch the wall, it punches back.

It is not that people do not want what is better for them, it is that they are content with what they know now... what they are comfortable with, and what is familiar to them brings them a complacency which denudes them of their desire for something "Better". "Why have better when I have good enough?" Is the sort of attitude which Wade has to contend with.

And that is, of course, just assuming that this is all true, and Wade's heart is in the right place. I'm not one to decry something as impossible or preposterous, I myself know how very little I know about anything whatsoever. In my heart of hearts, I hope that the law of thermodynamics is found to be somehow violable. Yet if it is, then it is only an uphill battle from there, with assassins on the cliffs above who serve their own comforts.

you are posting your links over and over but I dont get the point..

can you just please in a few words conclude what it is about?
is it the ´free energy´that Dr Greer is talking about, based on ´zero-point-energy´?

Hi: I am back:

I watched UFOs in action and had other fun. I am well aware that our history shows that there have been few peaceful revolutions. All of recorded history has played out under the scarcity paradigm. The abundance paradigm is one that is beyond the victim game. As soon as people think that they need to “get” the “bad guys” in order to make FE happen, the “bad guys” have them on their turf and have already prevailed. That is part of the conundrum.

www.ahealedplanet.net...

I highly doubt that the old ways will work in bringing in the new paradigm, particularly one as radical and unprecedented as an abundance paradigm. My message is pretty simple, but few have proven themselves capable of truly comprehending it.

Hi Anti72:

I was recently asked to present the gist of my message in less than 500 words, and I did so, here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I hope that makes it clearer. I am not into discussing the technology on this thread. Greer is one of many who are trying. I respect his efforts. Tapping into what is called the ZPE field is probably the main FE way to go. I am trying to initiate a political-economic discussion, but it is not really happening there.

To all: As I keep watching the troll jousting that is happening here:

I want to remind people of what troll grappling does to threads like this:

en.wikipedia.org...

curezone.com...

Trolls are not motivated like most others are. I find it similar to how most people cannot understand why dark path initiates operate the way they do:

www.ahealedplanet.net...

It is not easy to understand somebody who has a different motivation, one that can be 180 degrees from your orientation. Demonstrating that a troll does not have a grasp of the facts, or cannot make rational arguments, or makes posts that are entirely off-topic (which ALL of NRen2k’s are) is not a deterrent to a troll. For instance, Mr. Skeptic KNOWS that I KNOW that he is dishonest, but it does not stop him from playing his games and attacking me when he can.

It does not take much intelligence to see how Mr. Skeptic dishonestly attacked my former partner (and me, as well).

www.ahealedplanet.net...

But once he unmasked himself to those who knew the situation, he acted as if his lies suddenly became facts, and he has plowed on in the same direction, without deviation, for the past ten years. He plays his audience for idiots, and it was once surprising to me how effective his tripe has been on people who should know better, but I eventually learned my lesson. I may have to start a new thread one day, either at ATS or somewhere else, if I want to begin engaging the public on the POLITICAL-ECONOMIC aspects of FE. I have not given up on this thread yet, however.

Best,

Wade

again,

you are posting your links over and over but I dont get the point..

can you just please in a few words conclude what it is about?
is it the ´free energy´that Dr Greer is talking about, based on ´zero-point-energy´?

Hi Anti72:

I have done what I can. I suggest that you read my first post on this thread. It is not about Greer and ZPE.

Be well,

Wade

[edit on 8-9-2007 by wadefrazier3]