Free Energy

For decades, the various energy companie$ have been

COLLUDING with each other, [and probably also with the

national and international banker$, governments, news media,

"scientific" establishment, and "education" systems], to

successfully ignore or even SUPPRESS several kinds of "FREE-

Energy" technology. Government intervention is needed to

stimulate research, development, and mass production of these

technologies.



Free-Energy devices probably do not create energy, but

rather tap into EXISTING natural energy sources by various

forms of induction. Unlike solar or wind devices, they need

little or no storage capacity, because they can tap as much

energy as needed whenever needed.



For example, at least three U.S. patents (#3,811,058,

#3,879,622, and #4,151,431) have so far been awarded for

motors that run EXCLUSIVELY on PERMANENT MAGNETS, apparently

tapping into energy circulating through the Earth's magnetic

field. The first two require a feedback network in order to

be self-running. The third one, as described in detail in

"Science & Mechanics" magazine, Spring 1980, ("Amazing

Magnet-Powered Motor", by Jorma Hyypia, pages 45-48, 114-117,

and front cover), requires critical sizes, shapes,

orientations, and spacings of magnets, but no feedback. Such

a motor could drive an electric generator or reversible

heatpump in one's home, year round, FOR FREE. [Complete

descriptive copies of U.S. patents are $3.00 each from the

U.S. Patent Office, 2021 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA

22202; correct 7-digit patent number required. Or try

getting copies of BOTH the article AND the Patents via your

local public or university library's inter-library loan

dept..]



A second type of Free-Energy device, such as the "Gray

Motor" (U.S. Patent #3,890,548), the Tesla Coil, and the

unpatented motor of inventor Joseph Newman, taps electro-

magnetic energy by induction from "Earth resonance" (about 12

cycles per second).



During the 1930's, an Austrian civil engineer named

Viktor Schauberger invented and partially developed an

"IMPLOSION TURBINE" (German name, "ZOKWENDLE"). As described

in the book "A BREAKTHROUGH TO NEW FREE-ENERGY SOURCES", by

Dan A. Davidson, 1977, water is pumped by an IMPELLER pump

through a LOGARITHMIC-SPIRAL-shaped coil of tubing until it

reaches a CRITICAL VELOCITY. The water then implodes, no

longer touching the inside walls of the tubing, and drives

the pump, which then converts the pump's motor into an

electric generator. The device seems to be tapping energy

from that of the Earth's rotation, via the "Coriolis effect",

LIKE A TORNADO. [And it can also NEUTRALIZE GRAVITY!]



A fourth type of Free-Energy device is the "McClintock

AIR MOTOR" (U.S. Patent #2,982,261), which is a cross between

a diesel engine (it has three cylinders with a compression

ratio of 27 to 1) and a rotary engine (with solar and

planetary gears). It burns NO fuel, but becomes self-running

by driving its own air compressor. This engine also

generates a lot of heat, which could be used to heat

buildings. [David McClintock is also the REAL original

inventor of the automatic transmission, differential, and 4-

wheel drive.]



Crystals may someday be used to supply energy, as shown

in the Star Trek shows, perhaps by bombarding them with a

beam of particles from a small radioactive source.



One other energy source should be mentioned here,

despite the fact that it does not fit the definition of Free-

Energy. A Bulgarian-born American Physicist named Joseph

Maglich has invented and partially developed an atomic FUSION

reactor which he calls "Migma", which uses NON-radioactive

deuterium as a fuel [available in nearly UN-limited

quantities from sea water], does NOT produce radioactive

waste, can be converted DIRECTLY into electricity (without

energy-wasting steam turbines), and can be constructed small

enough to power a house or large enough to power a city or

spaceship. And UN-like the "Tokamaks" and laser fusion

monstrosities that we read about, Migma WORKS, already

producing at least three watts of power for every watt put

in. ["New Times" (U.S. version), 6-26-78, pages 32-40.]




fraktali.849pm.com...


Looks like a mega site: fraktali.849pm.com...

You do know that no one is going to mass produce something that won't make them any money, right? Not to mention that anyone who does will be on the oil company's hit list, along with the energy company's. It isn't worth it. Sure, this stuff is out there, but until it gets a show during prime time, it doesn't matter.

When you put clean energy up against dirty money, you're going to lose. Think of it as an unwritten law of nature.

Either these devices do not work as well as advertised or the technology is too expensive to produce and market the ideas.

The profit in marketing any of these items is beyond huge and surely greatly outweights the risk.

When you put clean energy up against dirty money, you're going to lose. Think of it as an unwritten law of nature. Posted by Protector

I totally agree. There are numerous invetors and geniuses out there that have come up with all kinds of workable ideas for free energy. Almost every time one comes up that is workable, if it gets patented, a major oil company will immediately come and offer up a grand sum to buy the concept (a deal you can't refuse!) and the concept immediately disappears into a vault somewhere never to be seen again.

Nikola Tesla was one of the first in the world to experiment with what is now referred to as Zero Point Energy or Zero Point Radiation. During his research, Tesla developed a theory that challenges Einstiens Unified Theory of Relativity: Upon inspection by some knowledgeable theoretical physics folks, they could not find a reason for Teslas theory to not work, and it in fact provided explainations for some known problems with current ZPR theory in quantum physics.

This information regarding Teslas theories are only found during research of his lengthy notes... Tesla had an innate sense of which of his invetions had good commercial potential, but he himself admitted to not being much of a businessman, and was more than happy to sell his *saleable* concepts to others to market. (This is what led to his virtual rape at the hands of Thomas Edison). Of course, Teslas interests were not driven by profit motives... he was just interested in sufficient income to finance his more esoteric forms of research.

As to why he never marketed his ZPR generating technology (according to numerous witnesses, it worked quite well and has more than enough potential to make the oil companies VERY nervous) mainly because he understood at the turn of the century, the world was just starting to understand electricity. At the time, there wasn't sufficient electrical infrastructure to support the potential output of his invetions.

Originally posted by Protector
You do know that no one is going to mass produce something that won't make them any money, right? Not to mention that anyone who does will be on the oil company's hit list, along with the energy company's. It isn't worth it. Sure, this stuff is out there, but until it gets a show during prime time, it doesn't matter.

When you put clean energy up against dirty money, you're going to lose. Think of it as an unwritten law of nature.

kind of reminds me of the whole drug legalization deal. any politician that legalizes drugs will be assasinated by the mafia. i'm sure the same goes for the man that begins marketing these devices.

Eric Krieg has a history of Perpetual Motion Machines and Free Energy Devices at: www.phact.org...

He covers Joe Newman and other modern claimants. Eric has a $10k prize for a successful controled test of a free energy device.

Genesis World Energy has recieved some some attention here lately for its free energy claims. Eric covers them at
www.neongold.com...

I cover them at
members.cox.net...

The argument that the oil companies prevent FE technology has some problems. Why haven't the oil companies been able to stop fuel injection, energy efficent appliances, broadband communications (low power), hydro-power, nuclear power, solar power, ...? In fact, many non-oil energy sources, especially methanol, solar, hydro and wind power, get all kinds of taxpayer support.

The argument that the oil companies prevent FE technology has some problems. Why haven't the oil companies been able to stop fuel injection, energy efficent appliances, broadband communications (low power), hydro-power, nuclear power, solar power, ...? In fact, many non-oil energy sources, especially methanol, solar, hydro and wind power, get all kinds of taxpayer support. Posted by Chipolte Pickle

Actually, the items that you mention are not a problem for big oil companies, and are not in any way connected to the advent of free energy devices. In short answer to your question about why big oil is so afraid of FE versus alternative energy is very simple: They are afraid (or more to the point, know full well) that many FE technologies do in fact work, work well, and will supply at least the level of performance, or better than, fossil fuels will.

Energy efficiency technologies such as fuel injection, ect, are not a significant impediment to big oil at all. On a global scale, demand is still full tilt, and they certainly dont suffer too much just because your car is running at 40 mpg instead of 20 mpg. Indeed, financially speaking, fuel efficiency technology helps to keep thier fossil fuel expenditures in line somewhat, and if anything else, will help to extend thier reign with fossil fuels.

The alternative energy that you mention (solar/wind/geothermal/hydro, ect) are likewise of very little concern to big oil. Virtually all of the technologies you mentioned are geographically dependent on a specific location. In North America, between 70-80% of all suitable geographic locations for such technology has already been exploited, and we still need much more energy than these technologies are able to supply. The additional 30% or so that has yet to be exploited is not going to cover the remainder of what we are still getting from fossil fuel energy. Indeed, to fully exploit all suitable geographic locations for such uses would create as many or more environmental problems than standard power plants currently do. Of course, if such technologies were implemented on a global scale it might have some affect, but this is not feasible. In addition, these technologies are very expensive compared to standard generator technologies, and are of considerably lower efficiency.

The alternative fuels you mentioned share many of the same problems. It is too expensive compared to gasoline, fuel sources are not readily available, low efficiency, lower energy output (anyone who had driven a methane powered truck knows what I mean). This could be argued to be part of the big oil conspiracy to prevent alternative fuels from being more widely available.

Nuclear power is a dead end. If you do a bit of research you will notice that there have been NO new nuclear reactors commissioned in the US or western European/industrialized world in the past 10 years. Sweden, probably the one country most dependent on nuclear power is currently striving to become nuclear free by 2025. The reason for this is that nuclear power is largely negative efficiency, or, no nuclear power station has ever generated ANY net power. Don't believe me?

Consider the energy input into building the reactor (considerably more intricate than a run of the mill gas turbine power station). Consider the energy input into refining and producing the nuclear fuel. Consider all the waste material generated, waste nuclear fuel, waste coolant, packaging, storage material, fuel containers, all now radioactive and requiring disposal in a deep dark cavern (which had to be excavated, requiring a good deal of energy). All the tools, PPE, clothing, the structural building material of the reactor station itself eventually has to be torn down and disposed of in underground containment. (Reactors generally have a 20 year service life). Now add all this energy up, and consider all the megawatts of electricity it generated over its service life X the going rate for electricity, and compare costs.... almost every time, nuclear power LOOSES money.

Big oil is NOT concerned with nuclear power. Nuclear power is currently being developed only for specialized roles, such as naval vessels, spacecraft, and by certain countries that think that a 5 megawatt reactor will be believed to power the country, never mind the plutonium we are generating out of it....

There's no such thing as free energy.

Windmill is free energy you say? Costs tens of thousands of dollars to maintain one yearly, you need hundreds to get any real energy.

Same with geothermal plants//solar plants, it all costs a LOT to maintain.

Magnets are no different, a magnet to produce for you energy must be continuous. You put two magnets on the table they will spin to the opposites and connect.

It would be no different with the Geomagnetic feild.

You can tap into energy created by nature yes, the sun is a great example. But it is very costly, not because it is hard to make, but hard to KEEP and hard to make A LOT.

1m^3 of the best quality solar panel you can buy still outputs only about 1kw an hour. Most houses use on average of 4.4 kws an hour, and 1m^3 of a solar panel costs as little as 400 dollars.

Now to produce energy for a city, that's a lot of money.

Primarily because solar panels is the ONLY source of energy that is near free.

However to produce energy on a real scale, we'd need to turn the whole earth into a solar panel, and even that isn't enough because half the earth is dark at any given time.

If you'll check the government patents, you'll see that there are literally thousands of "free energy" patents out there and none are owned by big oil companies/car companies, etc, etc, etc.

www.uspto.gov...

Now -- we have seen some websites where the inventors claimed this, but when we checked the USPTO and other sources we found that the 'inventor" was lying about the persecution. We've also seen inventors lie -- like the one who claimed "free energy" ...and was living in a house that had no electricity and was heated by a wood stove and lit by candles and lanterns. If his device worked so darn well, why didn't he just build one and light the whole neighborhood?

why do free electricity salesmen all have electric bills?

[Edited on 2003-4-3 by chipotle_pickle]

Dragonrider...

Byrd's observation has been proven true in my personal research on this as well...the patents don't seem to be owned by oil companies. However, some of them, are owned by subsidiaries of subsidiaries, etc. Tesla's work though, is mostly owned by the government, and there's a lot of Tesla's work that you won't see a "patent" on....

one person to demonstrate 100% that his device taps into radiant energy and is unlimited and can power something, and it will get around quick and definitely make headlines. Problem is, none of the inventors seems to be able to make their crap work reliably ALL THE TIME. The stuff seems to underperform when there's an audience...that's no good.

I can say with certainty that if room temperature fusion is discovered tomorrow it will be on every news channel worldwide. I would also say that the man who invents an actual free energy device had better not worry about getting rich- he had better think about the rest of humanity and release the plans free on the internet- once that happens, it's all over for the secret keepers.

Dont let the dollar determine the future- you have an obligation to see to it that these inventions reach all of us. Who cares if you wont get paid for it- you will always know who it was that changed the world. That is payment enough.

Greed on both parts- the inventor and the government, has up until now prevented these inventions from seeing the light of day. Let's make sure that doesn't happen again.

[Edited on 3-4-2003 by BlackBox20]

I think that what you will find is that some of these folks just plainly want attention. I have never in my entire career seen any device, nor heard about any device that defies all thermodynamic laws. There is no such thing as a perpetuum mobile.