Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

News announcements and other topics => News => Topic started by: MasterPlaster on July 18, 2013, 12:50:41 PM

Title: Why we still don't have free energy the real reason
Post by: MasterPlaster on July 18, 2013, 12:50:41 PM

http://aetherforce.com/why-we-still-dont-have-free-energy-the-real-reason/

Title: Re: Why we still don't have free energy the real reason
Post by: crazycut06 on July 18, 2013, 01:18:40 PM
Nice link thanks!
Title: Re: Why we still don't have free energy the real reason
Post by: markdansie on July 18, 2013, 01:50:29 PM
there could be another reason. None of the claims work and claiming suppression is an easy way out fro the inventor.
Kind Regards
Mark
Title: Re: Why we still don't have free energy the real reason
Post by: Liberty on July 18, 2013, 03:17:48 PM
there could be another reason. None of the claims work and claiming suppression is an easy way out fro the inventor.
Kind Regards
Mark

Mark, I think you are probably right with your assessment.  If there is not a "new way" or design that could clearly allow efficiency gains over standard devices already available, there is really no chance that the device could produce the desired result.  (As they have been tested and tried before).

Liberty
Title: Re: Why we still don't have free energy the real reason
Post by: casman1969 on July 18, 2013, 04:30:21 PM
Even a blind squirrel can find a nut now and then...
If one invention/improvement to existing technology occurs, then it must follow that suppression is happening. My example is vaporizing gasoline to increase MPG by +/- 30%. I have installed this technology on my Ford F-150 and instantly realized the savings/increased MPG of 25% as advertised. Further tweaking will surely improve on my numbers. I purchased mine through AGS (fuel vaporizer kit). So, this technology is here and has been researched since the dawn of the IC engine yet every time someone brings this to market something pops up to prevent its implementation. Car Manufacturers know about it, Gas giants now about it and the powers that be know about it yet we still languish in our ignorance and fail to utilize this simple (non-OU) technology.
You see, if they can prevent this one small improvement from seeing the light of day for  a century it must also follow that many other inventions have been successfully squelched.
Dis-information  abounds.., con artists and scams fill the blogosphere, diverting attention away from anything promising as we scramble here and there trying to find or invent the holy grail of OU devices.
Claims of success dot the pages of OU.com but still no independent verification of these achievements.
Vapor burns/explodes, liquid gasoline does not and that's the reason why our IC engines are so very inefficient. Look what happened with Paul Pantone. What extremes will the PTB go to in order to maintain the status quo?
For that reason, I firmly believe the grail of OU exists and has already been invented but does not exist in any available patents because the PTB do control the Patent offices and its processes.
We are, after all, blind squirrels and the moral to the story is to invent and then freely distribute the information. Bypass the Patent office and bring any and all OU technologies into the light of day. Money is nice but if it is your sole reason for secrecy and the Patent process then all attempts to invent and/or replicate will be doomed to failure or be thrown on the corporate trash heap. Open source is the only answer and the only way any OU device will get to the general public. When I, you or anyone comes to this forum with a device, hold nothing back. Knock off the desire to be greedy and think about your fellow man for a change. Therein lies our hope and therein lies the seed to improving the common man's lot in life.
It's better to be a poor hero. Notoriety will always follow.
Oh, and who is John Galt?

Title: Re: Why we still don't have free energy the real reason
Post by: Liberty on July 18, 2013, 05:52:44 PM
I believe the best path to take is not open source, because open source has the same problem that an inventor has, 'no funding' which means the device will not see the market.  Trade secret seems to be the best path for an inventor.  The PTB will never know what you have, and you can use Confidentiality agreements to license your device to those you trust.  The best thing that the open source group can do is to start a fund for free energy devices; so that there is funding available to inventors to be able to bring forth the device to market and manufacture the device.  Trade Secrets cost nothing, but are as good as a patent, and can be licensed through contract.  Since OU devices are "impossible", (not allowed by patent office) there is zero chance of patent infringement.   
Title: Re: Why we still don't have free energy the real reason
Post by: casman1969 on July 18, 2013, 06:17:53 PM
@Liberty,

That is a workable solution even though less than ideal since trade secrets have a habit of being leaked. Regardless, if it bypasses the old normal then it works for me.
The funding you refer to can accomplish what we need so the only thing I can hope for is that those controlling the funds money get the verification and validation done before money is released. Otherwise, a very good way to proceed.
Title: Re: Why we still don't have free energy the real reason
Post by: profitis on July 18, 2013, 06:28:25 PM
cumon people cumon.its expressly forbidden for any device to produce useful work when there is no temperature difference right?well what the hell is a nantenna doing then?a nantenna rectifying ambient infrared doesnt need a temperature difference.it cuts us some dc current and voltage in the face of the 2nd law thermodynamics! If this isnt perpetual motion on display i dont know what is.even the wikipaedia article on nantennas admits its confusion to this issue.
Title: Re: Why we still don't have free energy the real reason
Post by: profitis on July 18, 2013, 06:58:27 PM
@webby,,thats the tip of the iceberg i suspect.thers alota shit going on behind the scenes, handshakes,some handshakes turn sour,some turn into gold.people assume they know and hear evrything.naive
Title: Re: Why we still don't have free energy the real reason
Post by: casman1969 on July 18, 2013, 08:03:15 PM
@Webby,
Attached is a photo of my installation. I show this to make the point that safety need not be sacrificed with the proper engineering. Atomizing injectors are not vaporizers but injectors can be made to vaporize first, before injection. This is not done because of the obvious benefits to us, ie., cleaner, more efficient burn and much higher MPG. These are not money makers for either the car mfg.'s or for big oil but do benefit most everyone elses wallet. This iteration is only the beginning and will only get more safety aspects when people understand what the cost benefit really is and how it really works.

Title: Re: Why we still don't have free energy the real reason
Post by: ColoradoSpringsFilms on July 18, 2013, 08:27:33 PM
You guys are being fooled. Direct yourself to the real source, where Eric Dollard himself speaks about the issue. Take his word for it, then make a conclusion. Here's the link, and don't allow yourselves to get sucked in to the wrong people.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A5V-aHcR5Ts
Title: Re: Why we still don't have free energy the real reason
Post by: casman1969 on July 18, 2013, 08:51:15 PM
@Webby,
Simply put, the hot air/gas mixture coming from your PCV is routed through the canister where small amounts of gas are dripped. This is what causes the vaporization and it is put right back to the air intake just like how they recycle the manifold gasses only now those gasses include the vaporized gas and not a lot of it but enough to make a profound difference in you power and MPG. This technology has been around for a hundred years and the only explosion to ever occur happened when a kid removed the carburetor and sent the vapor directly to the intake manifold. He was able to get 100+ miles per gallon and died mysteriously at the conclusion of a witnessed 200 mile test run not unlike how Michael Hastings was taken out.., in a ball of fire.
Title: Re: Why we still don't have free energy the real reason
Post by: profitis on July 18, 2013, 09:28:47 PM
just throw a few drops combustion catalyst in the gas tank,it,l increase mileage,decrease consumption.just b sure it doesnt leave residue in combustion chamber.problem solved.
Title: Re: Why we still don't have free energy the real reason
Post by: markdansie on July 18, 2013, 09:50:03 PM
Even a blind squirrel can find a nut now and then...
If one invention/improvement to existing technology occurs, then it must follow that suppression is happening. My example is vaporizing gasoline to increase MPG by +/- 30%. I have installed this technology on my Ford F-150 and instantly realized the savings/increased MPG of 25% as advertised. Further tweaking will surely improve on my numbers. I purchased mine through AGS (fuel vaporizer kit). So, this technology is here and has been researched since the dawn of the IC engine yet every time someone brings this to market something pops up to prevent its implementation. Car Manufacturers know about it, Gas giants now about it and the powers that be know about it yet we still languish in our ignorance and fail to utilize this simple (non-OU) technology.
You see, if they can prevent this one small improvement from seeing the light of day for  a century it must also follow that many other inventions have been successfully squelched.
Dis-information  abounds.., con artists and scams fill the blogosphere, diverting attention away from anything promising as we scramble here and there trying to find or invent the holy grail of OU devices.
Claims of success dot the pages of OU.com but still no independent verification of these achievements.
Vapor burns/explodes, liquid gasoline does not and that's the reason why our IC engines are so very inefficient. Look what happened with Paul Pantone. What extremes will the PTB go to in order to maintain the status quo?
For that reason, I firmly believe the grail of OU exists and has already been invented but does not exist in any available patents because the PTB do control the Patent offices and its processes.



go look to Europe where they are developing and selling vehicle over 70 MPG some over 100 mpg.
PS why did not the Tesla Electric car people get suppressed lol


Your argument has no logic.


Kind Regards

Title: Re: Why we still don't have free energy the real reason
Post by: SkyWatcher123 on July 19, 2013, 12:10:05 AM
Hi folks, first off, we would need to define free energy.
So for this reply, we will call free energy, a device or method that provides energy freely.
While the method or device may or may not be free due to the first cause of why we still do not have free energy methods or devices available freely or for purchase by the masses of humanity.
The first cause is a human attribute, which is described as fear.
This fear generally manifests itself in individuals or groups that seek to maintain the status quo of certain energy systems being used in any particular time period.
His-story shows this pattern clearly, if one researches it.
The second cause is monetary systems that give incentive to individuals or groups to maintain current energy methods or devices for the purposes of gaining wealth or power, which the monetary systems enable.
The third cause is ignorance and this ignorance applies to any individual or groups or whole populations of a planet.
This ignorance of new knowledge helps to delay or prevent new energy systems or for that matter, any new beneficial idea from being used widely by humanity.
These are the most basic reasons why we still dont have free energy available to the masses of humanity.
May the light of love, truth and wisdom set humanity free.
peace love light
tyson ;)

Title: Re: Why we still don't have free energy the real reason
Post by: profitis on July 19, 2013, 01:03:44 AM
true to a degree @skywalker.however ive noticed alot of establishment scientists themselves are now prodding into 'forbidden' territory even in published journals.not that they are actively seeking to bend rules but rather that they are crossing paths with findings which contradict the rules.they are poking the tip of the iceberg so-to-speak without being rude to the rules of engagement.     
Title: Re: Why we still don't have free energy the real reason
Post by: Pirate88179 on July 19, 2013, 05:38:50 AM
@Webby,
Attached is a photo of my installation. I show this to make the point that safety need not be sacrificed with the proper engineering. Atomizing injectors are not vaporizers but injectors can be made to vaporize first, before injection. This is not done because of the obvious benefits to us, ie., cleaner, more efficient burn and much higher MPG. These are not money makers for either the car mfg.'s or for big oil but do benefit most everyone elses wallet. This iteration is only the beginning and will only get more safety aspects when people understand what the cost benefit really is and how it really works.

Cas:

No offense intended but, I have to say that this looks like an engine fire just looking for a place to happen.  Seriously, be careful.  That set-up does not look like it will survive the vibrations and heat degradation we see under the hoods of the modern auto these days.

Bill
Title: Re: Why we still don't have free energy the real reason
Post by: LibreEnergia on July 19, 2013, 11:18:59 AM
cumon people cumon.its expressly forbidden for any device to produce useful work when there is no temperature difference right?well what the hell is a nantenna doing then?a nantenna rectifying ambient infrared doesnt need a temperature difference.it cuts us some dc current and voltage in the face of the 2nd law thermodynamics! If this isnt perpetual motion on display i dont know what is.even the wikipaedia article on nantennas admits its confusion to this issue.

nantennas do not violate 2LOT. The 'confusion' in the Wikipedia article is entirely due to the author being diplomatic with the wording. In another forum (http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/38106/does-nantenna-nano-antenna-violates-2nd-law-of-thermodynamics) he says as much and says,

"What I wanted to say was: "Obviously this application would violate the second law of thermodynamics." But I ended up writing that more understated and diplomatic sentence which you quote, because of wikipedia's referencing rules. "
Title: Re: Why we still don't have free energy the real reason
Post by: profitis on July 19, 2013, 02:45:36 PM
@libre..i have to vehemently disagree,if your nantenna is rectifying ambient infrared then you have basicly got a phil hardcastle device in action,ie.a mim diode rectifying without need for temperature gradient.same applies to my earlier parabolic mirror example,zero point-light source required,inside the box.