It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by admriker444
I'm not sure what I can do to help besides believing FE exists. I have made it a point to inform all my family and friends on the subject.
Originally posted by SuicideVirus
The biggest difference between the Wright Brothers and the various people claiming success at generating "free" energy is that the Wright Brothers actually accomplished what they were claiming to do, and they were able to repeat their feat for anyone who cared to see. Success talks and B.S. walks.
Anybody who says the free energy field isn't full of 100 times more paranoid nutcakes and con artists than heroic freedom fighters is delusional.
But all any of them have to do is actually deliver the goods and the world will beat a path to their proverbial door. In other words, put up or shut up.
And at that point, let the scramble for credit and riches begin. Sometimes the inventor manages to hold on to the invention, like Bell and the telephone. Most of the time, people better at marketing win out. That's why we don't fly around in Wright Aircraft Company passenger jets.
Besides all that, even "free" energy that you cook up in your own garage will still require components to be manufactured, wires to be strung, regulations to be made.
Somebody will own those little machines.
The oil companies, probably. The government will tax it, either directly or indirectly.
And most people will probably go along with it.
Nobody's stopping anyone from growing their own tomatoes, either. But it's just easier and cheaper to go to the store and buy them, rather than do it yourself.
Same thing with the Internet. Any computer with a modem can still hook up to any other computer in the world via phone. No Internet needed. But most folks would still rather pay $20/month to some big evil corporation to hook up.
Originally posted by RogerT
I read every one of these threads, thanks, certainly given me a new perception on the motivations behind PO and the continual global interruptions to the oil supply. It's interesting to look at the current sabre rattling with Iran in this light.
I thought the US/Israel would not follow through on inferred threats for fear of disruption of flow through the straits of hormuz - now it seems this could be seen as the exact reason for a strike against Iran! Imagine the price of oil if a tanker or two gets sunk in the punch up.
Anyway, my brief but enlightening (and belief reversing) excursion into PO has brought me right back to the FE question, which seems to be where I am 'destined' to be anchored.
In several of your posts you refer to FE or AFE (almost free energy) sources, particularly vaccuum, and in one post suggest we refer to your posts on vaccuum energy.
Can you please list a few of those posts to save me having to trawl through your 2000+ posts ;-)
[I didn't find a way to search an individual's posts here on ATS, is that possible?
Better still, if you could suggest to me a straight answer or two to the questions I posed to Wade ... without the ET conspiracy references which I believe are a red herring.
Thanks again.
RT
PS. Bearden's DVD 'Energy from the vaccuum' - did you see it and if so, is it worth the purchase or is it just more 'theory' without evidence, or as Greer puts it - 'proof-of-principal'?
Shame Bearden doesn't seem to have any info available in e-format -
I like my info on the hurry-up and waiting x weeks for a dvd to arrive from the states is a bit of a bug bear of mine.
Technology to invent free energy, but not up-to-date enough to post files online :-(
Originally posted by StellarX
Originally posted by SuicideVirus
The biggest difference between the Wright Brothers and the various people claiming success at generating "free" energy is that the Wright Brothers actually accomplished what they were claiming to do, and they were able to repeat their feat for anyone who cared to see. Success talks and B.S. walks.
I think that patent record speaks volumes as to how many have proved the reality of vacuum energy...
Anybody who says the free energy field isn't full of 100 times more paranoid nutcakes and con artists than heroic freedom fighters is delusional.
There are fare more nutcakes and paranoids involved in AIDS research, 'global warming', immunization scams, fusion research and the like than in free energy so please point your fingers where all the money is already being wasted.
But all any of them have to do is actually deliver the goods and the world will beat a path to their proverbial door. In other words, put up or shut up.
They have delivered the proofs but it's hard to survive success in this particular field.
And at that point, let the scramble for credit and riches begin. Sometimes the inventor manages to hold on to the invention, like Bell and the telephone. Most of the time, people better at marketing win out. That's why we don't fly around in Wright Aircraft Company passenger jets.
Money is but a tool to manipulate the world and it's expended in large volumes to protect the system that lends the power to manipulate. When we arrive at a stage where resources may be relatively cheaply produced by vacuum energy powered fusion or the like i am willing to bet that control is going to be very substantially harder to exercise.
Besides all that, even "free" energy that you cook up in your own garage will still require components to be manufactured, wires to be strung, regulations to be made.
That is true but that very same product may later be employed to provide the energy to create another; not something that is currently possible.
Somebody will own those little machines.
Like Bill Gates 'controls' the world wide market in MS installation disks? Who pays anyone for wind or sun power?
The oil companies, probably. The government will tax it, either directly or indirectly.
They will try but laws must be enforced to be of any use and enforcing the flow of vacuum energy is unlikely to be a simplistic task.
Originally posted by NRen2k5
Yes, there were better battery technologies. But that isn’t directly relevant. The question is, were the better battery technologies more economical at the time?
Yes, NiMH cells existed in 1999, but were they economical?
All technology is initially expensive and gets cheaper as production increases and production techniques improve.
Yeah, go ahead and keep making those accusations. Like everything else, you won’t stand up for yourself and back up anything you say with real proof.
They decided the project wasn’t worthwhile, and as most companies would, they completely scrapped it.
Why keep a project on life support if you’re already convinced it isn’t worthwhile?
The claim is yours. Show me 5 celebrities who were on the environmental bandwagon in 1998. That should be a cinch, shouldn’t it?
Observation being what exactly... oh, right, reading quacks’ websites and falling for their BS hook, line and sinker.
where E is the electric field, H the magnetic field strength, B the magnetic flux density, µ0 the permeability of vacuum, and µr the dimensionless relative permeability of the surrounding medium. (All bold letters represent vectors.)
For example, the Poynting vector within the dielectric insulator of a coaxial cable is nearly parallel to the wire axis (assuming no fields outside the cable) - so electric energy is flowing through the dielectric between the conductors. If the core conductor was replaced by a wire having significant resistance, then the Poynting vector would become tilted toward that wire, indicating that energy flows from the e/m field into the wire, producing resistive Joule heating in the wire.
en.wikipedia.org...
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...
You ought to take your own advice.
If you believe your biased source.
My claims are grounded in reality; yes I am getting the basics right.
You continue to cite sights from way out in right field as if they speak the authoritative truth.
I know, we don’t have to. But no, it wasn’t sabotaged. Think for just a second about the idiocy you’re spouting.
If they knew “from the get go” that the electric car was a bad idea, why even make it?
Being able to afford something and actually wanting it are two entirely different things.
CHELSEA SEXTON: The EV1 in particular was really special just because it was really cool and fast and fun to drive, and one of the things that GM did so right when they set out to make that car was to absolutely shatter the golf cart myth when it comes to electric cars.Chelsea Sexton was part of the General Motors sales team for the EV1. She's now an activist in a campaign to promote electric cars. According to her, General Motors abandoned the EV1 because it threatened the big players in the industry.
CHELSEA SEXTON: What GM didn't count on was those cars being so good they would challenge the status quo of the auto industry, of the oil industry.
CHRIS PAYNE: The Hummer was the ultimate SUV. And in fact, when it came out, you could get up to a $100,000 tax deduction if you were a small business owner for owning one. So the government gave a message to the people. The message was - buy these huge monstrosities. Meanwhile, the electric car, when they were on the road, the maximum tax credit you could get was $4,000. So this is how government shapes the future, and unfortunately the American Government was pushing Hummers and no wonder in some ways the car companies walked away from the EVs and concentrated on these Hummers.
news.sbs.com.au...
Despite the demand, the EV-1 could only be leased, not purchased, and was available only for six-month terms before the lease had to be renewed. The first prototypes had a range of 100 kilometres without recharging, but new technology added a further 50 per cent to this. This covered 90 per cent of the trips made on a daily basis by Californian vehicles, and it’s been estimated that the latest advances in battery life would have extended this even further to more than 300 kilometres.
The regulation was removed on 24 April 2003, when CARB, under a new Chair, reversed their decision.
Although demand for these vehicles continued growing expeditiously, General Motors not only withdrew them all from their distraught owners, but had them crushed and minced into metal confetti to prevent their ever reaching the marketplace again.
www.goldcoast.qld.gov.au...
The blog post refers to a number of statistics, purporting to show a lack of demand for the EV1. The "biggie" is that only 800 vehicles were leased during a four-year period (late 1996 to late 2000); if that's all the lessees GM could find, then clearly that's inadequate demand to build a market, as they claim. However, that four-year period only includes two actual model-years of vehicles, 1997 and 1999; between these was a long period of zero availability, after the 1997s were gone and before the 1999s were finally released (near the end of calendar 1999 due to some engineering tweaks, a year after every other 1999 model!). Moreover, every new vehicle that was made available for lease was leased; that is, the fact that only that many EV1s were leased was a result of GM's decision not to make any more to meet additional demand, but it is (and long has been) misrepresented as a reason that they decided not to make any more. Actually, there were about 1100 EV1s made; the other 300 included in-house demonstrators and testbeds, test-drive cars for EV1 specialists, and a substantial number that went to utility-company lease programs in Florida and Georgia, so the figure of 800 includes only "regular" leases in California and Arizona. But some commentators have taken the difference between 1100 and the quoted four-year total of 800 to mean that 300 EV1s sat on lots going begging! Nothing could be further from the truth, but GM is clearly encouraging that impression.
In addition, the writer of the blog post has been quoted elsewhere as saying that the EV1 production lines never ran above 8% of capacity, again implying that they could have ramped up production if there had been more demand. Of course, this is also consistent with the conclusion that they could have ramped up production if there had been the will to meet unmet demand; the fact that GM didn't have those supposed 300 "leftovers" sitting on the lot looking for lessees argues that the latter is a more accurate statement. And this statistic, baldly stated, appears to imply that GM expected to lease (and thus intended to lease) twelve times as many cars as they did, having designed the production lines for that capacity; however, the production line was designed to build EV1s in batches of 500 or so, and then to be disassembled and put in storage until a decision was made to build another 500. (There was a GM/UAW display on this at either an auto show or an EV1 event that I attended in 1996 or 1997; sorry, I don't have photos to jog my memory for the details.) Thus, the low "duty cycle" of the production lines simply means they ran exactly as designed; it says nothing about whether GM leased as many cars as they could (GM's implication), or only as many as they were willing to build.
www.altfuels.org...
Originally posted by NRen2k5
That’s a fine non sequitur.
Read his site with a critical mind.
You’ll realize that it’s nothing but a collection of tall tales.
And you fall for that inane crap? I call it “proof by verbosity” and realize that it’s proof of nothing.
Assuming such devices existed, yearly maintenance and replacement would be more than enough. Like VCRs circa the late 1990s and turn of the millennium.
My degree is in Electrical Engineering. What’s yours?
Of course, because the establishment must be wrong and the counter-establishment must be right.
You mentioned something about naïveté a minute ago.…
Show to be wrong? I made a passing remark about people believing it possible to transmute lead into gold. You showed me a theory (not proof) of other, lighter elements possibly being transmuted.
Shown to be wrong? Please.
??
My primary statement being what, you shifty twit?
There is no vast amount of energy flowing from the source dipole. Just what you see in the circuit.
For example, the Poynting vector near an ideally conducting wire is parallel to the wire axis - so electric energy is flowing in space outside of the wire. The Poynting vector becomes tilted toward wire for a resistive wire, indicating that energy flows from the e/m field into the wire, producing resistive Joule heating in the wire.
www.answers.com...
A particle can indeed absorb more than the light incident on it. Metallic particles at ultraviolet frequencies are one class of such particles and insulating particles at infrared frequencies are another. In the former strong absorption is associated with excitation of surface plasmons; in the latter it is associated with excitation of surface phonons. In both instances the target area a particle presents to incident light can be much greater than its geometrical cross-sectional area. This is strikingly evident from the field lines of the Poynting vector in the vicinity of a small sphere illuminated by a plane wave.
adsabs.harvard.edu...
Only in your own mind. It’s you who’s believing in nonsense, not me.
They are not free energy of the (bogus) Newman type.
Yes. But why mntion vacuum energy now? Stop trying to obfuscate things.
As I’ve demonstrated already I’m quite capable of keeping up.
On the contrary. I know there are other sources, but I know a bogus source when I see one.
Admittedly, sometimes something real can seem bogus. But when something’s really bogus it’s pretty obvious.
Dipoles do not freely radiate energy radially in all planes.
magnets’ fields are made to do work constantly, they will eventually degauss.
Because there are charlatans out there who just want your money.
And unlike Big Oil, the Elite, or whoever you want the faceless evil to be, they don’t provide anything useful in exchange.
Originally posted by NRen2k5
And why give your lunch money up to a silver tongued charlatan who promises to tell you how to get a free lunch but refuses to give you anything himself? Why not just give it to the lunchlady? Why not just make your own lunch?
But you are impressed by the charlatans.
And the Big Bang Theory is just that: a theory. We don’t know for certain what was before the Big Bang.
I’m claiming no such thing. You shouldn’t go putting words in my mouth.
That happens in extreme cases, or, more often, when the “fringe scientist” really is a crank.
Nope. Those who design the systems are perfectly well aware of what they’re working with.
Nor am I seeking to prove anything about vacuum energy or anything else. Just that Joseph Newman and some others like him are frauds.