To browser these website, it's necessary to store cookies on your computer.
The cookies contain no personal information, they are required for program control.
  the storage of cookies while browsing this website, on Login and Register.

Storing Cookies (See : ) help us to bring you our services at . If you use this website and our services you declare yourself okay with using cookies .More Infos here:
If you do not agree with storing cookies, please LEAVE this website now. From the 25th of May 2018, every existing user has to accept the GDPR agreement at first login. If a user is unwilling to accept the GDPR, he should email us and request to erase his account. Many thanks for your understanding

User Menu

Custom Search

Author Topic: Conventional vs Conversion Approach to Energy Independence  (Read 4386 times)

Offline Doctor Whodini

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 143
    • How to build FREE ENERGY, Gravitational and Time Travel devices and systems that utilize GMF
Conventional vs Conversion Approach to Energy Independence
« on: October 26, 2005, 04:58:46 AM »
Hello all,

According to my latest research, the Tesla coil taps into what is called "The Schumann resonance or Telluric Earth currents. The precise nature of this current isn't known, but what is known is that they play havoc with high voltage switch gear. Tesla mentions the frequency of this current is approximately 12 cps, and through my own experimentation, this frequency is between 12.6 cps to 12.95 cps. This current appears as a negative then positive going pulse of energy, and couples into transformers with low turn primaries and high turn secondaries - like the Tesla coil for example. I believe this energy is the FREE ENERGY sought after with devices developed over the past century, and observed from these same devices as having anomolous momentary "excess" energy.

The objective is to harness this FREE source of energy as "excess" electrical energy. The way to do it is synchronize the operation of the coil to the frequency of the Earth current during the positive going phase. In other words, the intent is to phase lock, "magnify", and collect this excess energy.


William S. Alek
FREE ENERGY, Antigravitational, and Time Travel Technologies

  INTALEK, INC.           PHONE/FAX: 219.924.2742
  3506-43rd. Place            EMAIL:
  Highland, IN 46322 USA  HOME PAGE:

> --- In, <erickrieg@v...> wrote:
> I don't think Tesla did useful ground work in theory -  he had a few
> fabulous early inventions - but his latter work was all crackpot
> money wasting failures that only created rumors of lost technology
> (with people still failing to replicate insane claims).  Tesla coils
> are great - but his delusions like the Tesla turbine, significant
> power transfered through the air, force fields and death rays were
> just nuts.  There is a whole genre of books that exciting tales along
> the lines, "decades ago, someone had this amazing technology that
> could solve all our problems . . . . but it got lost".  Give me a
> break.  Faraday, Maxwell, Einstein and others did science discovery
> that has stood the test of time.  Evans' theory involving torsion
> fields, tensors and eigenvalues is simply at a level of physics
> beyond anyone likely to be on this list.  I personally don't know
> enough to really critique it - it is what is called a TOE - "Theory
> of Everything".  There are many of them out there and I have no idea
> even what it would take to rate them.
>     Bearden is another matter:   He has lots of followers in the FE
> world who think they understand Bearden-physics.   I think Bearden-
> physics is just thrown together big words and have yet to meet any
> Bearden follower who can explain it.   I think it is an emporor's new
> clothes level of delusion.  I ask anyone to find me a Bearden
> believer willing to walk me through the meaning of the equations over
> the phone.   Besides, we must remember, it was over 10 years ago that
> Bearden wrote the book, "The final secret of free energy"   - has it
> helped anyone?  In the MEG community, there is basically a cover up
> of the truth: . . . .  it doesn't work.   Of course if someone would
> really be willing to prove otherwise, that would be a different
> story.   I'm not trying to stop people from looking into that kind of
> claim, I'm just asking people to draw attention to some areas of the
> claim that raise flags.
>      The pure theory end people are tough to know how to deal with -
> maybe one has something significant.  I admit that Einstein came out
> of the blue.   But there are too many theory people all with long
> exhausting tomes - most that should require a high level of math and
> physics knowledge to evaluate.  I ask that we just be honest to admit
> when we do not have the advance math degrees that would be required
> to begin to pass judgement on them.  I try to tell people rather than
> mail me the 200 pages of theory, be willing to show me or a witness
> of my choosing a working model that can at least self run.
>    just my ideas,
>    Eric Krieg
> >From: "Leslie R. Pastor" <lrpastor@o...>
> >Date: Fri Oct 21 07:35:07 CDT 2005
> >To:
> >Subject: [NEC-Forum] Conventional vs Conversion Approach to Energy
> Independence
> >While attempting to utilize 'natural' elemental methodologies and
> modalities such as wind, solar and water/ocean sources, it is
> important to focus on the ultimate source of all energy
> transference.  Motion is the basic principle that underlies ALL
> energy transformation.  What is important is understanding
> how 'motion' can be 'utilized' to effect 'energy' transference.  The
> most basic elemental 'motion' modality is the movement of the
> electron and the manipulation of its orbit path.   If we are to
> remain successful in acquiring our goals of energy independence, we
> must 'think' outside of the conventional 'box' of upper level
> manipulation of the basic elements.  We will need a strategy, that is
> global in nature and ubiquitous incorporating all of the inhabitants
> of our planet. We will need to re-examine the groundwork already
> established by Faraday, Maxwell and Tesla---for starters.  Then we
> will of necessity, need to examine the current 'novelty of fact'
> technologies already 'theorized' and 'appropriated.'  Evans, Bearden
> and Mills come to mind, because they are 'presently' alive and
> approachable right now. If one wishes to accomplish extraordinary
> achievements, then one must assume extraordinary methods in
> accomplishing those achievements.  May I suggest that we contact and
> communicate directly with Randell L. Mills, Thomas E. Bearden and
> Myron Wyn Evans individually and thus ascertain the quickest, least
> difficult 'modality' for creating the maximum efficient method
> of 'energy' extraction?  We have significant 'constraints' that need
> to be effectively solved, by the appropriate due diligence. All the
> Best,Leslie R. Pastor Myron Wyn
> Evans
> Thomas E.
> Bearden
> rg/techpapers/Unnecessary%20Energy%20Crisis.doc  Randell L.
> Mills
> p://
> 2630/4/1/370
> ubs/journals/fst/va-37-2-157-182 
> >
> >=======================
> >