Nazi Ufo's

The Germans were YEARS ahead of the allies in scientific advances.

If it wasn't for Hitler's persecution of the Jews, they would have been LIGHT YEARS ahead (literally). Einstein was in Germany when he can up with the Theory of Relativity, he later moved to the USA when it became clear that the Jews were being persecuted and was a lead scientist and a leading supporter and proponent of the Manhattan Project, something he regretted later in life.

Many German scientists were Jews who moved to the USA and elsewhere before the war, and lead the USA into major breakthroughs during World War II.

If it wasn't for these scientists moving away, and the Allied bombing of the heavy water facility in Norway, it was very clear that the Nazis would have EASILY won the race to develop the atomic bomb.

They were also very close to a V3 rocket that would have been able to hit New York and Washington with a warhead in 1945 (likely halted by the Allied bombing of Pennemunde), and were the first to make the Jet Engine functional, even though this was largely a British invention during the late 1930's. The British had the idea, but were never able to put it into production until after the war.

It doesn't surprise me in the least that the Nazis had downed/crashed UFOs likely being backward engineered, and it is quite well known that they were testing "disk shaped objects" of their own during World War II.

Before World War II, Germany had one of the highest concentration of high end scientists the world had ever seen.

reply to post by NichirasuKenshin


Very much so, because I have shown his work to a few friends and WWII buffs (including a professor) I know at my university, and the consensus seems to be "This makes sense" or "stretching it, but very possible. Also, am I wrong to assume that part of your problems with his work have to do with his reliance (esp in early books) on Igor Witowski's work?

reply to post by bigbomb456


Witkowski isn't really a problem for me, honestly: He is telling a tale. I appreciate that tale, it is interesting. But as for the reality of it - it all relies on his words. If indeed he did see the Sporrenberg interviews then maybe indeed there is something to investigate there, but as long as he refuses to prove so or bring forawrd anything material then he simply misses the benchmarks of science and cannot be taken relevant for the discussion. There's simply no epistemological grounds to decide the questions when all we have are these tales.

Let me randomly pick one thing that Farrell got completely wrong: The story about IG Auschwitz-Monowitz. Farrell states that this facility was built to produce air-fuel and consumed huge amounts of energy during the war and therefore was probably part of the Nazi A-Bomb program because one can demonstrate that it never produced any air fuel even though its construction was finished in 1943.

In this very important point Farrell makes the following mistakes:

- He neglects that we actually know allot about the installations at Auschwitz-Monowitz because there are numerous reliable witnesses as to what went on there, both inmates and IG Farben personel.

- He neglects that while the plant did consume large amounts of energy and didn't produce any air-fuel, it did produce large amounts of Methanol from 1943 on and therefore was a vital link in the german air-production even without invening a supposed link to the A-bomb.

- He neglects the sheer size of a facility for enriching nuclear fissible material. Even if the whole of Auschwitz-Monowitz would have been such a facility, it would not be large enough. And demonstatebly a large part of Monowitz was really used for other lines of production.

So here's an example where Farrell let's speculation get the better of himself. He's under the influence of a confirmation bias that brings him to such conclusions. Indeed if you believe the Germans had an A-bomb program, and you know that Monowitz didn't produce air-fuel while it was built for that, then making Monowitz the site of the A-bomb program is very suiting.
But that only works when you disregard everything else that we know about that facility.

Again, while I find him honest and interesting to read there's too many such examples to take im extremely serious. But he's very sympathic and not the worst of writers, I would so wish he would not fall for such stupid mistakes.

reply to post by copper5661


Copper5661.....

I can't believe that the Germans were THAT far ahead

Neither can I.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

Well Not to burst any bubbles but....

Kugelblitz look up the term... then look up the DOE DOD ONI DARPA and other american institutions research into said phenomena and use of paper clip scientists to do so...

And as far as the nazi's not being VASTLY more capable than they were given credit for... I'll post two links one to a 1942 SUCCESSFUL semi conventional technology project and it's mid first decade of THIS CENTURY AMERICAN counterpart... you can judge for yourself the differences and the claim is verifiable.

Now it's one of the fields of research that falls into semi fringe or non conventional engineering but in no way wrapped up in so called anti gravity etc... which I have my opinions on but won't get into here...

ORNITHOPTERS: aircraft that fly by flapping wings like a bird

discaircraft.greyfalcon.us... this is DR lippisch's SUCCESSFUL human powered and then 3 horsepower gasolline engine powered ornithopter!!!

www.ornithopter.org... well this isn't from the modern flights but the powered one built by an american university is .... just orders of magnitude LESS IMPRESSIVE LESS FUEL EFFICIENT And the result of way more inflation adjusted dollars and automation adjusted man hours by orders of MAGNITUDE....

SO ... say what you want about this or that... But the reality is The Harrier combat helicopters the assault rifle modern IFV's the GUIDED MISSILE the ballistic missile the space station hypersonic flight the ramjets and pulsejets we still can't get right ... GEE they managed to do all of these things as good or better than we do today per dollar spent etc well except space flight... I'll say they weren't doing that..

Now as far as operation Highjump it's funny Byrd himself seemed to think we were under threat... Forrestal (secretary of the navy at the time that byrd's expedition returned after 8 weeks from what should have been an 8 month expedition with thousands of GROUND TROOPS) spoke with Byrd after his return ended up in Bethesda naval hospital for psych hold within a short time period and then "Jumped" out his window to his death THE NIGHT BEFORE HIS RELEASE...

*nods* oh and NASA stands for NAZI'S and Some Americans as the brain trust just like most of our defense projects for the next decade were heavilly leveraging nazi research and scientists. and as far as the saucers and stuff go... Well skeptics and Disinfo types HAMMER on the ANTI GRAVITY terminology rather than argue actually feasibility of techniques and technologies.

BAE Systems took up this research, it was originally thought that the NAZIs used coldfusion and this guy called Yevgeny Podkletnov had a theory and took up the mantle.

I worked at BAE when project Greenglow was launched to investigate anti gravity but it moved to the US and I never could follow it. Last I heard Podkletov managed a 2% reduction in weight from anti gravity in Russia and he was now in Japan where they took him more seriously and is beleived he is upto 5% reduction in gravity.

Nazis were certainly thinking outside of the box, if you look at Irans first UAV release a couple of months ago, it looks similar to Hitlers Doodlebug or V1 which actually was probably more accurate and deadly and its 60 years older!

actually in the 50's EVERY Single Major AMERICAN CANADIAN AND BRITISH aviation Firm had an electrogravitics research division... Pop Sci and popular mechanics were touting it along with air and space and everyone else....

THen POOF!! antigravity is impossible don't be silly...

So .... you skeptics that think the germans weren't onto something care to comment? the fruits of many of these projects are STILL CLASSIFIED .... gee so are we going to eventually get a Cargo train worth of FOIA documents that say nothing but we tried this this this and this DID NOT WORK?

The reality is an ENTIRE INDUSTRY isn't likely to chase chimeras.... (well except helicopters that was a stupid idea from day one that had one HELL of a PR master pushing it.)

.... I mean look at a pair conventional technologies that the conventional engineering community will TO THIS DAY TELL YOU CANNOT BE HARNESSED in a commercially viable way.

1. Ornithopters: www.ornithopter.org... there is a quote from the builder after his initial test flights that to me says it alll and makes me question why every househould doesn't have an ornithopter in the garage.

QUOTE from schmid: "Do we understand what it means," he wrote, "to start and be able to fly with 3 hp? At a distance of 100 km, to use no more than 1.5 liters of fuel?

his initial prototype used a modified commercial sailplane and a 3hp Lawn equipment engine achieved self powered take off and averaged around 37 miles per hour....

Now with modern tech and materials .... do you get the implications of this? it's staggering yet we see even basic single seat helicopters that are lucky to get a mile or two per GALLON need to be rebuilt COMPLETELY every thousand hours and cost half a million dollars bare minimum.

Oh and the micro UAV dragonfly thopters are VTOL... (this is the only type of ornithopter modern engineers seem to be ALLOWED to work with....) there is no HELICOPTER ON EARTH that carries a person aloft with under 20 times the engine power of this 1940's invention!


2. AIr POWERED CARS: TATA motors enough said...using a french air motor. I've had automotive engineers to this DAY tell me this is impossible!



Oh and just as a bonus round I'll throw in some other links showing you how far technology HASN'T progressed since the end of ww2.

1: Dymaxion car by bucky fuller: Eleven passenger van or useable as a delivery or plumber type van... 30 plus mpg economy could outrun the purpose built RACE CARS of its day... Was suppressed through cartel dirty deeds STill NOTHING even close to it by a major auto maker. www.boingboing.net...

2:Ok can;t find the other one but it's a recent VTOL city car concept touted as NEW that was really just a poorly updated version of lippisch and another german's concepts from the 50's

Oh and ps: the Lippisch Aerodyne project and another germans idea for a gas turbine engine concept ... that made the Harrier oh and german number two ... yeah he invented a little thing called the gas turboshaft engine.... you know the thing that makes modern helo's no matter how stupid they are work with turbines.

There are many websites and videos on the subject whereas there is no genuine evidence of the very existence of Nazi UFO. Just explanations with missing links or extrapolations. I found a very well balanced article on the subject and a proff how to fake and age so called "Nazi UFO" vintage pictures . Here it is : nazi-secret.com...

I will just ignore the two posts that peddle Nick Cook's speculations as gospel and make another comment.

I would be highly interested in anyone willing to discuss Cook or Farrell on individual points. I wish there as even one book that was written on the topic with a consistent high standard - the Low's of Farrell and Cook just even out the intruiging parts of their books.

Most Nazi UFOs or disc craft, see Henry Stevens book on actual
Hitler Disc Aircraft, are made up drawings and stories or
did not work.
If they had photos of a VW bug with a Tesla coil at the back seat,
if there was a back seat, and said this is the Foo craft that went after
B-17s, I'd say they were showing me something.
If there were any bigger or better than the Foo they got shipped
to New Mexico, USA and Switzerland and a cylinder went to
Kennybunkport, Main USA where a photo of one just happens
to be in archival photos.

So you'll ignore my posts because nick cook said some of the things i do?

What about popular mechanics, Popular Science, Air and space, Mechanics Monthly?

WHat about the articles in newspapers etc and company org charts that show these organizations existing....

What about the Ornithopter Stuff I posted? THe reality is technological development has been artificially stymied especially in certain fields since the turn of the TWENTIETH century! It's not that the germans were that far ahead they just stopped letting certain interests keep innovations from at least getting a try in the lab. Overall though as everyone points out as evidence of the nonexistence of the phenomena even though they broke ranks they still never took advantage of the advances they made of a non conventional nature.

So the real conspiracy and puzzle we should all be looking for answers to is why exactly they didn't put into production they advances they did make on any sort of systemic basis?

Also for those that aren't ignoring anything that doesn't fit with how time magazine says the war happened. An interesting area of research is where the funding for alot of the experimentation and research was coming from (hint your answer lies on the North American Continent) And if you don't believe me well look at archival footage from the early days of the war when germany was invading poland and france. Now once you have a bunch of footage get a book that identifies common makes and models of cargo trucks from the era. Then pop some popcorn but keep the pepto bismol near by because you'll start to see FORD after FORD carrying the troops supplies and etc for the NAZI's

It's even more disturbing though how many modern foundations like the aspen institute etc had ties to funding the human research done in the camps same with our pharmaceutical corporations who funded to varying degrees and BENEFITTED from the fruits of the twisted things that happened in those camps.

reply to post by NichirasuKenshin


Oh and PS... unlike most arm chair commandos I have physically experimented with quite a few of the purported technologies of the day and am actively engaged in perfecting several devices and etc of my own for the start of the patent process....

No matter what you may have READ in a BOOK or WANT to BELIEVE.... I have BUILT AND TESTED actual physical proof of concepts to back up my arguments.

but feel free to think what you will and ignore anything that might pose a threat to your world view....

p.s: I did read the hunt for zero point after reading HUNDREDS of technical and non technical critiques of his work. I also as a teenager had a neighbor who was a retired engineer with skunk works... He didn't drop anything earth shattering or show me the alien hand he keeps in the freezer. But he did tell me to QUESTION what the mainstream says is possible or workable. IN his own way he all but admitted that his career was spent workiing with one hand tied behind his back not being able to use things he knew would work and instead being forced to find ways to get INFERIOR technology to perform as best he could. He was a very frustrated individual who spent most of his retirement teaching kids like me whatever we were willing to learn and tending his koi pond. As I have gotten older I now understand the pain and resignation I saw in his eyes when I would ask him what it was like to work with Bleeding edge new technology, and he'd say "I don't know they never let us do it... we had to make it work with PROVEN SYSTEMS we were allowed very little lee way for putting in anything truly new.

The anger in his voice when he'd talk about this was palpable.

Originally posted by roguetechie
So you'll ignore my posts because nick cook said some of the things i do?

As I said I'd love to discuss individual points.

What about popular mechanics, Popular Science, Air and space, Mechanics Monthly?

There's no doubt that these publications discussed free energy devices as the next bing thing in the 1950's. But then again, there's plenty of examples of these "next big thing" stories that turned out to be unfounded.

The current stance of these publications on free-energy devices is that there are none that deliver constant, verifiable and therefore scientifically legit positive results.

WHat about the articles in newspapers etc and company org charts that show these organizations existing....

Which organizations? Free Energy Organizations?`('???)

What about the Ornithopter Stuff I posted?

A good example of what I said earlier - the Gemans were cutting edge engineers and were very succesfull in refining concepts that were already long established. As far as I could glean from what I read in your links and some years earlier the propulsion technique of this device is totally conventional, although cutting edge.

I would simply take that as an example of what I said: They were very good in taking 19th century physics and refining it to a degree that the Allies didn't reach until they built the MIC and let it operate for years.

This example is a far cry from being lightyears ahead. And call me stupid but as far as I can see it is not propelled by an exotic engine.

THe reality is technological development has been artificially stymied especially in certain fields since the turn of the TWENTIETH century! It's not that the germans were that far ahead they just stopped letting certain interests keep innovations from at least getting a try in the lab.

While this may very well be a possibilty, there's not much evidence, be it material or circumstancial, to let me think that.

The biggest problem I have with this premise is that the kind of Free energy device alluded to by Cook and others do not require big institutional structures. For god's sakes Schauberger got his ideas from staring at rivers.
IMHO; being involved with research and funding in science there's simply no way to stiffle such technologies, as basically anyone in his garage can reproduce them. With the A-bomb, or other technologies that take an institutional complex in order to be built - there you can simply fuss with every state that tries to develop it - keeping 7 billion people from working in their back yards isn't possible.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Strange thing how most of the people who claim to have invented free energy devices or some such thing never seem to get bothered by the secret cabal.

Overall though as everyone points out as evidence of the nonexistence of the phenomena even though they broke ranks they still never took advantage of the advances they made of a non conventional nature.

That's one possibility, and I won't deny it. But then there's the other: That they simply misjudged the technology . something that happens often in science - and came to realize that it's i) a hoax or ii) not reproducable in a way to make it scientific (therefore excluding it from being considered as a mass-applicable method)

FORD after FORD carrying the troops supplies and etc for the NAZI's

Yes, that's a fact, acknowledged by Historians.

Now you can either see this as some sort of conspiracy ( HF was a rabid Nazi and Anti-Semite and even inspired Hitler, Hitler had a pic of Henry in his office at the brown house, an ally of Hitler claimed a Ford agent provided the NSDAP with two payments in 1923, etc.) and there's certainly some merit to question Ford's motives.

Or you can simply contextualize the whole thing: Ford as an Anti-Semite was interested in investing in Germany and help rebuild and re-conservatize Germany, therefore he bought up Opel. When the Nazis came to power there was no way to bring the profits out of Germany as reinvestment in the War economy was dictated by the law. So Ford had the chance to either quit the market in order not to be part of the German war machine ( something that is very unlikely in the light of HF's sympathies but also in light of normal business rationale) or simply shut up and put up and enjoy the profits. I find this a plausible scenario - and it's supported by the documents. It's not uncommon, these things - go take a look at where the Soviet trucks for the Viet Cong were produced - that's just business.

It's even more disturbing though how many modern foundations like the aspen institute etc had ties to funding the human research done in the camps same with our pharmaceutical corporations who funded to varying degrees and BENEFITTED from the fruits of the twisted things that happened in those camps.

Actually there was very little pharmaceutical experiments in the camps, allthough there certainly was collusion by pharma. Of course the Nazis never put Fluoride in the water of the camps and other claptrap.

When it comes to human experimentation it was the americans, quite independent of the Nazis, that set the worst record, even after establishing the principle of "informed consent" in the trials.

All in all I don't see all your points adding up. That's why I'm more of the guy to discuss individual points. Rebutting Cook's or Farrell's research in one post is quite impossible.

As I said, both have their merits, both seem rather honest. But neither of them is a competent historian, which kind of ruins most of the appeal of the book.

Originally posted by roguetechie


Oh and PS... unlike most arm chair commandos I have physically experimented with quite a few of the purported technologies of the day and am actively engaged in perfecting several devices and etc of my own for the start of the patent process....

That's very fine and dandy, really. But then again, simply claiming this on an online board is kind of lame and has been done numerous times before, in fact, so many times that it loses all it's meaning by the inflation of these claims on ATS.

When it comes to history, you are by definition an armchair commando, so that was a pretty lame try to ad-hom me just because my post frustrated you. I have been to Bohemia and Moravia and have looked at all the supposed physical evidence there is of Nazi UFO's, something I doubt you have done. And I can't say there's really much to see. I am in possession of copies of most of the relevant documents. I have read all possible literature on the subject (minus those that are redundant or substandard). So, I have invested time, money and planning into looking at this question and I simply must take offense when someone tells me that all this had no merit at all to establish the veracity of the situation while his own, ahistoric and unsubstantiated experiments in his garage somehow add up to definitive proof of what the Nazis did or not did develop. Try publishing an article with that kind of methodology, for god's sake.

No matter what you may have READ in a BOOK or WANT to BELIEVE.... I have BUILT AND TESTED actual physical proof of concepts to back up my arguments.

The topic of this thread is Nazi UFO's. That makes this a historic thread. Any contribution will rely on knowledge and proper interpretation of documents, articles and books on the subject. Unless you are claiming that you actually possess original Nazi blue prints of esoteric devices and have actually reproduced them than this makes no sense. If that is your claim, well....

Then again, going by probality if you actually would have developed a free-energy device then you would probably not be on a conspiracy board merely asserting so. You would link to your patents, peer-reviewed articles, research grants and actual devices built, and not just merely claim that you have. You probably would not waste your time with posting here if you had done so. You'd probably have a contract from a government or a large corporation. But that's reality again, and who cares for that?

but feel free to think what you will and ignore anything that might pose a threat to your world view....

Says the guy who claims that his supposed inventions somehow prove that the Nazis had UFO's. Well.... talking about world views... I try to base mine on facts that are available for actual dissemination and can therefore be objectified. Something that your claims can't at this stage.

But he did tell me to QUESTION what the mainstream says is possible or workable. IN his own way he all but admitted that his career was spent workiing with one hand tied behind his back not being able to use things he knew would work and instead being forced to find ways to get INFERIOR technology to perform as best he could.

How to impress Teenagers online - a guide for people who wish to do something about their delusions of grandeur:

1. Assume that your opponent in a discussion is the very embodiment of mainstream: By that way, you can underhandedly accuse him of being statist and therefore conceptually unable to dig the "cutting-edgeness" of your claims.

2. Make a positive assertion about the claim from personal experience; say you i) invented something but nobody has noticed (explain the lack of attention by a conspiracy) or ii) claim inside knowledhe through a personal, unreproducable experience. Once you have mastered this technique, try to combine them in a causal way: You might claim that having received said inside knowledge "opened you op" or "awakend you" and therefore enable you to to what no one else seemed to be able to accomplish.

3. Build a false dichotomy by elaborating on points 1 and 2: Use your argument from authority by inside knowledge from point 1 and 2 in order to establish a conceptual divide between yourself and your opponent. Achieve this by demonstrating how only the inside knwoledge is worth anyting and that facts such as documentation or reprucability are just code-words used by people fooled by the conspiracy.

PROVEN SYSTEMS

To back up your claims, you would so far have to prove that:

1. You invented, designed and actually built a working free energy device.

2. Give a historical example of a free energy device that was shown to work by scientific observation.

I'll be glad to get back to you after that.

If you feel like discussing individual points - say the quotes from the 50's about free energy, feel free to do so.

The anger in his voice when he'd talk about this was palpable.

So was the anger in the voice of the Historian talking to me about Germar Rudolf inventing the whole modern Nazi UFO notion in the late 60's.

Well I responded to your post twice but ATS reposted your comment instead of posting mine however I'll throw down a third readers digest version and give you some examples to illustrate WHY I feel the way I do about the subject.

I have a bit of resentment at your characterization of me as some sort of attention seeker or FREE ENERGY hoaxer.

First I'd like to point out that the topic is NAZI flying saucers not NAZI FREE ENERGY!!

Second as you should know from the nick cook book which although you don't like it it's obvious you've read it. The aerospace firms had ELECTROGRAVITIC research firms ... I don't subscribe to perpetual motion type free energy as I have experimented enough to know it's pretty freakin UNLIKELY.

What I DO subscribe to is a personal feeling backed up by experimental observations and research that says this.

1. Not all of the supposed hard and fast LAWS engineers will tell you apply to the devices they build are quite what we are LEAD TO BELIEVE they are. Lead to believe is the key phrase here! My gut feeling is that several fields of research that are dangerous to certain interests are primarily kept unresearched by deliberate MISteaching of core concepts and bad INTERPRETATIONS of what certain principles and constants imply.

This is very different than psychic perpetual motion brain plasma UBER generators that will work if you just send me 49.95 and face west while humming in scales every 3rd tuesday of the FULL MOON.

2. I do not believe in ANTI GRAVITY... we don't know what gravity is or how it works... hard to negate or create a counterforce to something whose mechanics we don't understand at all except in the this appears to be the constant in our local neck of the universe.

3. I do however believe in resonance and rf/magnetic based REACTIONLESS PROPULSION. Which gyroscopic propulsion experiments and certain Lifter experiments replicated by THE NAVY say work to an extent when they want to....

4. I subscribe to the electric universe theory which gives more latitude for much of the areas of research I look into.

5. While I don't believe in perpetual motion I do believe there are techniques for harvesting energy fields that even quantum physics admit exist in novel ways which some may or may not have stumbled upon that are MUCH BETTER than what we are using now....

6. this is my personal belief but I also feel extremely strongly that part of our inability to get beyond certain efficiency barriers is due to IMPERFECT implementation and understanding of phsyical and physics phenomena and our understanding thereof.... I believe this imperfect understanding is being deliberately reinforced and defended by those with an interest in current paradigms!

This is just the basics of my personal beliefs and why I defend the viewpoint I do....

Beyond that though I will point out one other thing which is IRREFUTABLE and should be at the very least enough to start making people ask questions.

It is now the year 2010 and yet concept drawings and avenues of research the nazi's pursued during the war are STILL Showing up as viable WORKABLE technologies TO THIS DAY...

things like Coanda effect circular aircraft (there are several UAV manufacturers building coanda type vehicles)
Lippisch's aerodyne research...

In weaponry there is the penemunde arrow shell.... which the nazi's actually built an artillery type prototype weapon and round which fired once or twice during the war... the arrow concept has now been revived in several ARMY advanced technology programs with .338 lapua and .50 bmg rounds that are extra long and in the demonstrators case zinc coated designed to give more range and punch to existing systems.

LIke I said concept drawings and research projects that are known and verifiable are STILL showing up as cutting edge technology in 2010 which means 65 years after their surrender they are still seeming prescient and designs they drew up then are still showing up as new!

Is it really that far fetched to think with that being the case that maybe there is stuff that some interests in various places had a very very big incentive to keep from public knowledge? Especially when alot of the captured documentation and research paperwork from the war is STILL classified and comes back redacted if not denied when FOIA is invoked?

LOL AWWW man I thread killed...
I'm not all that smart of a guy ... I'm just following in the big freaking footprints of the GIANTS who have trod the trail before me.... they left us hints not all of which have been extinguished by those with a vested interest in maintaining the current zero sum games...


still don't know why I got accused of saying free energy was being done... I don't believe in free energy... I DO believe that there are better ways of extracting useful work out of naturally existing universal AMBIENT differentials that are part and parcel to the physical universe as we know it.

example: snow melts on a mountain flows into a water course ... this watercourse flows to the lowest point it can find ... BUT once it gets there solar radiation and ambient temperature cause evaporation and the weather cycle replaces more snow eventually back on the mountaintop.... BUT if you put a water wheel on the way down the water won't stop slightly higher because you "took" some of it's energy. Neither does the water once flowing down into the ocean or it's stopping point just SIT THERE....

So while with the way we do things CURRENTLY there is no free lunch... I do 100% KNOW that there are better ways we could figure out which would allow us to HARNESS natural phenomena and differential gradients in such a way as to generate energy VERY cheaply and with little expenditure of miscellaneous consumables in the harnessing process FAR superior to our current gradient harvesting Techniques.

Just a little brain teaser for those of you who like science... we know electricity plays a part in how our solar system galaxy and universe functions... Now if you look at EVERY single object that maintains a stable LONG term orbit in our solar system they orbit not in CIRCLES but ELLIPTICALLY!!! In addition to this they are also in no instances of orbital stability at 90 degrees to another orbital bodies or the sun's magnetic field....

So why do we try to FORCE generators and electrical dynamos to orbit in 90 degree orientations and in CIRCLES?

Some of you would say well how do we get a generator to move in anything but a circle.... But we manage it with internal combustion motors with camshafts... and etc... now beyond this we have the axial tilts of orbital mechanics and also the axial "wobble" of otherwise stable orbital profiles... I have recently come to theorize that this is NATURE's Counter EMF Backforce technique... creating slip fields that actually impart extra momentum which help keep the system in balance and compensate for particle related dynamic drag etc...

By either camming the brushes and allowing them to slip and bauble when necessary as well as some other things one could easily increase efficiencies greatly... especially if we had a levitating bearing assembly and building our generation assemblies to work similar to gyroscopes so they will self right....

I think this is why Bucky Fuller tesla and many others have all been heard to remark that nature doesn't do perfect circles or wheels.