The future of free energy is here Now!

This is amazing!
A new non-profit Group promoting and financing Free Energy Technologies.


This vid shows how to generate electricity for FREE, and how it can be stored. It also shows how we can do away with most of the grid!!

Please watch the vid and Tell people about it.
If WE don't keep our eye on developments like this they'll be swept under the carpet out of site by those power crazed monsters who keep us all enslaved.

I don't care about stars, give them to the next new member who joins, but flag the thread. The purpose of flags is to keep a thread visible. This should be kept visible.

If its been posted before, well, I've been here for two years and have not seen it, and I'm sure there are plenty like me.

reply to post by VoidHawk


Yes, this was published on Jul 9, 2012 from a TED Talk in Scotland.

Nice find but since I have heard nothing more about it, I had forgotten it.

Originally posted by VoidHawk
This vid shows how to generate electricity for FREE

No, it doesn't. It sounds like a business and they are developing technologies for commercial applications, so they won't be free. In the window coating example you'd be getting more or less energy from the sun depending on how you control the coating, but they expect to sell those coatings I'm sure...they won't be free.

Solar cells have been around a long time and they aren't free either. The sunlight hitting your roof doesn't cost anything, so that part is free, but as anybody who has run the numbers on solar cells can tell you, there is still a cost, not only for the original investment, but for maintenance and replacement since the cells have a limited lifetime.

So instead of "free energy", it's really a talk about alternate energy solutions.

So not only is the "free energy" from things like solar cells not free, but the talk is definitely not about what wikipedia calls "free energy":

In pseudoscience:

Free energy device
a hypothetical perpetual motion device that creates energy, thereby contradicting the laws of thermodynamics
a device of which a controversial claim is made that it taps an unconventional energy source not regarded as viable by the scientific community at large

In popular culture:

Free energy suppression, a conspiracy theory that advanced energy technologies are being suppressed by governments and/or special interest groups

I think he's doing himself a disservice by calling it that since:
A. It's not free, unless he's planning to give that stuff away, which he's not, and
B. As the wiki says Free Energy is generally a pseudoscientific term, so he's associating himself with nutters and he doesn't seem like a nutter. They are good sounding technologies, but he won't be spending money making that stuff, and then give it away for free, I assure you.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


We call windmills free energy but we have to buy the windmills obviously!!

I think we all know what we mean by FREE energy. It means we're not tied to oil barrens. It means we don't need to provide a fuel. It means were not continually stripping something from the earth. Its very often pollution free too!

By your reckoning free means it should magically materialize in front of us ready packed into a nice battery. We all know that's silly

Compared to oil this IS free because we only need to buy it once.

Originally posted by teamcommander
reply to post by VoidHawk

 

Yes, this was published on Jul 9, 2012 from a TED Talk in Scotland.

Nice find but since I have heard nothing more about it, I had forgotten it.

Maybe its been buried already. I hope not.

Wow free energy. I want some too. Where do I sign?

Originally posted by VoidHawk
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

We call windmills free energy but we have to buy the windmills obviously!!

I think we all know what we mean by FREE energy. It means we're not tied to oil barrens. It means we don't need to provide a fuel. It means were not continually stripping something from the earth. Its very often pollution free too!

By your reckoning free means it should magically materialize in front of us ready packed into a nice battery. We all know that's silly

Compared to oil this IS free because we only need to buy it once.

edit on 31-7-2013 by VoidHawk because: (no reason given)

how odd, he's not "debunking" the science
all he's really doing is attacking the term "free energy"
using wiki, notoriously unreliable, and unacceptable as a source in academic discussions [ZOMG ]
and then upholding capitalism

he's selling, blah, blah, meh

why?
because FE is not pseudoscience, it's an entire new paradigm
one where individual humans are not dependent on "power"/utility monopolies for energy
of course, some knowledge and assembly required

definitely a game changer,
however, given we've heard naught since this was originally demo'ed, there's a good possibility this has been suppressed or confiscated for national security BS, etc...


but feel free to disregard my words, as I Am quite "Insane".

Originally posted by VoidHawk
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

We call windmills free energy but we have to buy the windmills obviously!!

No, we don't call windmills free energy. This is my point. Look at all the free energy threads on ATS and the free energy videos on youtube. They aren't about windmills.

Not only are they not free, in the US they cost ratepayers more than conventional sources:

Wind power

Wind turbines reached grid parity (the point at which the cost of wind power matches traditional sources) in some areas of Europe in the mid-2000s, and in the US around the same time. Falling prices continue to drive the levelized cost down and it has been suggested that it has reached general grid parity in Europe in 2010, and will reach the same point in the US around 2016 due to an expected reduction in capital costs of about 12%.[111] Nevertheless, a significant amount of the wind power resource in North America remains above grid parity due to the long transmission distances involved.

I assure you most people are not thinking of something that's more expensive than what they are currently paying, like wind power is in the US, when they talk about free energy.

What you're describing is "clean energy" or "green energy", or "renewable energy", not "free energy".

Yes wind turbines are great sources of clean energy, but I don't really want a wind turbine in my backyard, which is why I end up paying the higher transmission costs to have the turbine located elsewhere. They are kind of noisy for one thing, and I don't have enough wind at my location either.

The entire world could be powered by natural resources [ie. solar cells and generators, wind turbines etc., etc.] but
it would be very expensive to set-up and any company that sets it up will want to maintain control of the technology.
I hear the oil companies are working on it now - but you could be sure they will not give it out for free. They will
figure out a way to maintain control ot the world's energy. Admittedly I didn't look at your video because i'm skeptical
about any free energy machine or device - seen at least 25 years of books and talk-show radio guests talking about
their free-energy devices and then they and there device seems to disappear - maybe they are kidnapped or paid off by the big oil companies.

reply to post by VoidHawk


These methods of manipulating electrons to utilise them in interesting ways, are not anything particularly new, and were not when this video was made. I think its all very impressive of course, but factually speaking, the problem with getting these things out to the public has nothing to do with thier cost, or perfecting the application of the science involved.

The problem, is now, and will likely remain for some years yet, that ALL energy production, barring the very smallest players, is monopolised by a very small number of very large concerns, with lobby power which has such weight as to regularly outwiegh the opinion of the general public in nations all over the globe. Despite the fact that there are nations and people within them, crying out for clean, cheap energy, unless the big players are allowed to control the distribution of that technology, and find a way to monetise it so that they can continue to charge monthly for its use, like they do with natural gas, and fossil burning electricity production methods at the moment, then this stuff will never see the light of day.

The lab is where it will remain, until such a time as either governments begin to shake off corperate lobby concerns, in favour of bowing to the demands of the citizenry, or those in control of these large companies decide that enough is enough, and there are only so many billions one can earn and horde before the entire premise becomes ridiculous, and they give up thier baronies.

One is unlikely, the other so improbable as to be considered an impossibility. But it is those things which need to change. New technology will not help free people from the chains of energy costs, but a change in the way governments respond to lobby power, or a less likely change in the way big energy companies behave would be the key to freeing the energy market up, to allow new players and methodologies, ones that could change the face of the planet forever, to come to the fore.

At the moment however, big energy firms enjoy a commanding position, one which remains lucrative, profit heavy, a goldmine. Thier greed outweighs thier sense of social responsibility, thier awareness of thier power over the course of the near future. Make no mistake, of all the things which hold hour species back, this is one of the greater weights around our neck, amongst the strongest shackles about our ankles.

Some things to remember.

This technology is amazing. It should be in use right now.

Will it cost money? Yes, but much cheaper than bills. By the look of it, we could pay a one off price for this technology, and pay smaller bills for upkeep etc.

This technology will never be in use. Standard dirty energy moguls run this world, they can shut this down in a snap.

reply to post by AlienView


OR maybe the ideas simply didn't work as expected or, if they did actually get results, the economics of implementing it didn't add up to a figure that was competitive with existing energy sources. To be at all competitive in today's energy market you'd have to be able to produce each megawatt-hour for less than about $40 (or 4c/kWh) and that's over the life of the device(s) including all maintenance and operational costs like labour and compliance testing for connection to the grid and don't leave out the transmission lines & protection systems in the calcs.

Originally posted by Pilgrum
reply to post by AlienView

 

OR maybe the ideas simply didn't work as expected or, if they did actually get results, the economics of implementing it didn't add up to a figure that was competitive with existing energy sources. To be at all competitive in today's energy market you'd have to be able to produce each megawatt-hour for less than about $40 (or 4c/kWh) and that's over the life of the device(s) including all maintenance and operational costs

Agreed

like labour and compliance testing for connection to the grid and don't leave out the transmission lines & protection systems in the calcs.

This tech is supposed to work without grid connectivity, of any kind. Its made pretty clear in the video that this tech was concieved as a way for every independant building to produce its own power without anything other than a battery system to allow for storage as infrastructure. No cables between buildings, no transformers, no grid what so ever. Have another watch of the video, its well worth a look.

reply to post by TrueBrit


The typical application of this tech would be a new twist on solar so, unless you're grid connected, you'll need some sort of storage facility if you can't use the produced energy in real time. You'd only need to produce that energy at an overall cost less than around 25c/kWh to be better off than purchasing it off the grid at retail prices though which is still a tough ask to achieve.

reply to post by Pilgrum


The cheapest and most efficient method to store the energy generated with this type of tech is Graphene super-caps.

Cheap to make (using something as common as a lightscribe DVD writer laser) can be made to any size of shape, can be many stacked multiple layers, can replace all lead acid and lithium batteries.

The energy generating tech in the TED video, can be incorporated into windows, so as not to incur expensive fitting costs like PV's do. Can be turned into exterior wall coverings, roof shingles, vehicle surfaces...and this stuff generates energy at night as well as day, unlike conventional PVs.

This is a commercial venture yes, but the researchers have at their root, their main motivation is altruism.

Listen to the part where the presenter is talking about how for years he has carried a photo of a poor African kid, dying of starvation...this is his motivation to create and launch this technology..not money.

But, as this also has the benefit of turning darkness into light, with no external energy input (better than the latest gen night vision gear), the military has probably snapped this up for their own use and forbidden it's public release.

I hope not, but it wouldn't surprise me if they have.

reply to post by Pilgrum


None the less, thats the aim of the project being discussed in the video. Difficult or not, thats what they are about just at the moment, and as far as I am concerned, thats fantastic. Its good to see someone taking the hard tasks by the horns, rather than constantly refining technology we should have left behind when we left the last century.

Very good video, S&F. If the cost of these products is reasonable it will be good. I fear that the technology will be suppressed though, it negatively effects the stability of the economy as we know it. I suppose this technology will be available in areas of the world like Africa to supply the people with products so they can survive, but we will be forced to ignore this good technology so our Economies don't suffer from job losses.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Free in the sense that there are no lasting/costly affects to nature. I don't mind paying for the luxury of electricity, but not at the expense of our environment. People want to frack, they want to drill, and risk people's lives for coal, but the truth is, we no longer need those old world means of powering our lives. The science exists.
Sure some billionaire oil or coal tycoon is going to lose his business. If he were smart, he'd of already moved on to the next era, instead of hanging on to a dying one.

As for the roughnecks that oil supporters say will be out of work if we ditch oil; there's no reason that those workers, used to working on rigs, couldn't adapt to work on windmills or tidal generators.

Alas, we live in a world run by short-sighted idiots who would rather have their children's children live in a post-apocalyptic wasteland and have riches today, than be known as being the pioneers of their age. smh

Free energy. Unlimited energy. No more power plants. Fantastic. Let's do it!

Problem is, we can't. And this fellow certainly can't. He's a spokesman, not a scientist.

The technologies he is talking about are awesome. The variable opacity windows I know are still under development. They work, but they have problems in real-world applications, one of which is that they are so easily damaged. When a bird flying into a $10,000 window can cause it to suddenly become no better than a $50 window... well, that's just not practical. The night vision film is amazing, and apparently works. How much does anyone want to bet it is under development by the military right now?

I'm sure this guy believes everything he just said... but most of what he just said is not designed to inform, but to convince. The speech uses quite a lot of emotional pleas throughout, and emotional pleas are a tip-off that the speech is not to disseminate information as much as to attract investors. He starts just a few seconds in with a photo of that evil pollution spewing from a nuclear plant... actually, that is a composite photo of nuclear cooling towers which emit nothing but steam (water) and fossil plant smokestacks which do not exist near nuclear plants. The effect is to show how dirty power plants are (which is generally true) and to associate together all the worries about radioactivity and pollution and corporate control in one emotion.

Then an immediate switch to this futuristic, spotlessly clean view of a living space. BTW, it looks like it could easily be imaginary; that could be a 3D CGI render using maximum texturing. But real or not, it is such a dramatic shift from the previous pollution and radiation filled imagery! Who wouldn't want to live there?

OK, me. But I'm weird and I acknowledge that.

Then he ends with the picture of the dying little girl... heartbreaking! Absolutely heartbreaking, and no one with a soul could argue that it is anything other than "wrong" as he says. But it being wrong does not have anything whatsoever to do with how electrons are going to act or how the technologies work... it is a plea for help, and that help is in the form of... wait for it... money!

This is about getting money to keep the research going... and to pay for the spokesman, of course. This guy is making some boo-koo big bucks, let me assure you. Speakers like this don't come cheap.

As far as the actual science goes... yeah, pretty impressive from what little he actually said about it. But he's talking about electrons being caught in limbo in a laboratory. Can that translate into enough power to run a house? That's a lot of scale to be overcome and so far I am not sure this technology is scalable to that degree. Of course, he's not talking to me; I am not going to call up TED and ask if they need a few million dollars worth of investment. Others will do that.

And rest assured, these others that do cough up the big bucks? They're not just being nice to the planet. They plan on getting their money back down the road with a nice little return. They want the same thing you want, the same thing I want, the same thing the power company CEOs want, the same thing the little old lady in the house next door wants... they want nice things in life. They want good food, nice cars, a nice home in a nice neighborhood, the big screen 3D HDTV, the video games, all the little things society has to offer. To get those things they need money. To get that money, they invest, looking for a return. That return means the price of this wonderful new technology will be the highest it can be to make the most profit. It's no different than what the power companies do right now, and are hated for doing.

This free-energy fantasy world can never happen... it defies the desire we all have to make our lives easier and denies the necessity of allowing each individual involved in an industry to profit in order to live. And even if it did somehow become possible, even if I was proven wrong on all counts mentioned above, even if God Himself reached down and decreed that the world would work the way some seem to want it to... it will not begin with some well-dressed guy giving an emotional symposium on the benefits of the technology his scientist friends are working on. It'll start in a garage on a quiet suburban street or a homemade lab sitting off a rural country road or even in the trunk of a curious teenager's car. It won't be pretty, it won't come with integrated video and sound effects, and it won't be announced on a stage in front of wealthy investors.

TheRedneck