Nikola Tesla & Free Energy technology ..discovered around 100 years ago

[GoatCheese]

Call me naive, but I don't believe that big companies assasin enemies.
Killing someone means that the people on top of that company take the risk of a revenge or punishment. For all their life afterwards. I don't believe any millioneer wants this - all he wants is to spend his millions in peace. Those of them that don't mind living in fear respectively live the much more interesting (challenging but rewarding) life of a criminal boss.

You're quite naive ..lol ..you asked for it, mate


just joking, bro..


Have a good one.

 

[ixnay007]

Ok, I've kind of avoided this debate, lest a snide comment, because views on Tesla's ideas and their practical efficiency are highly subjective.

You can claim this is is so for whatever reason you want. Tesla couldn't develop his theories because of greed, whatever. The point is the Tesla's experiments did not get incubated, and refined, and that has left us with questions to be answered.

the reasons these questions aren't answered may be explained easily, or with great complexity, but the simple fact is it didn't get its 'fair chance'

That being said, there are some points I strongly disagree with, that I felt I should speak to:



I agree with this, and quote it merely for the relevance of the next quote.



This is patently false. As quoted above, corporations defend their patents with a tenacity that pit bulls would envy. The courts are the least of their methods.

An energy provider potentially has billions to lose if a cheaper alternate source is discovered. Why would you think it would not be willing to spend hundreds of millions (or more) dollars to bury competition?

True, under anti-trust laws, you may have some lawsuits, but how much good did that do to Netscape in the browser wars? Sure, they won the anti-trust suit, but it was a Pyrrhic victory. What's the market share of Netscape currently? Yeah...exactly.

How many scientists, who have been scrabbling for funding for their research, constantly investor hunting, are going to turn down a 200M+ buyout?

Especially when that comes with a 7 figure salary for carrying on your research.

Poof! For under 300M, Exxon has halted a competitive energy source. They make that in under an hour, if not quicker. No anti-trust bullshit, no shenanigans, just a straight out deal. In fact, Exxon can now trumpet it's commitment and dedication to supporting green energy.

Just like that, your potential for 50%+ efficiency solar cells is gone.

Not only is it happening, it is actually a damn good business practice. Just ask Microsoft.

Then think about how many people you could find that for a just a few thousand dollars would be willing to take care of that problem in a more final manner. Then think about the impact these new energy sources would have on the economies in the middle east. You know, the same region that produces suicide bombers?

Sound crazy? Take a look at hydrogen fuel cells for cars, see if the death of one of the scientists by food poisoning doesn't strike you as odd. Especially when you realize 6 others in his party ate the same dish with no ill effects. Three days after he'd rejected an offer to buy out his lab. Which coincidentally burned shortly after his death.

I was kinda sorta following you, until you went off the deep end. Hydrogen cells aren't getting any more feasible, not so much due to the 1 to a little bit less than one conversions (you get hydrogen by splitting water into oxygen and hydrogen molecules, then burning the hydrogen you obtain less energy than you put in.. damn laws of thermodynamics) or the fact that storing hydrogen is unfeasible (it's one of the smallest molecules known in gas form, and it's hard to make containers that can hold it) which is related to the difficulty in transporting and distributing it..

The whole food poisoning issue isn't that weird, my mom alone got salmonella from a dish that we all ate from.. it was a single piece of chicken that wasn't perfectly cooked.

The whole issue of buying someone off, or completely burying a technology is pretty nonsensical also, if you just think about the logistics. Yeah, it's possible with a single inventor, but a small company, or lab? Meh, it takes a lot more collusion than can be easily explained.

The guy suppressing this technology don't have squat to care about government except for how many pols it can get on junket to Jamaica.

In addition, before you discount government involvement, think about the shakeups in a national economy dependent on oil and its related industries. How much is the US willing to spend to protect the auto industry? How many billions was that bail out again?

Nuclear is the greenest source currently available, and at far less expense and risk of a dedicated manufacturing facility for crap efficiency solar panels. There is your investment potential.

The problem is getting the funding to invest in those specialized manufacturing facilities. You'd need a billion plus to secure a manufacturing foothold. Where would that money come from, do you think? And if it does come from a source independent of big oil, do they have the resources to fight the battle beyond that point, compared to the most profitable business enterprise in the world?

I'm sure all the anti-nuclear hippies would be just thrilled beyond belief to know they're actually working for the oil companies.

Nuclear works just fine, but it's an investment only governments can justify.

Solar panel tech is limited by cost/efficiency ratios, it's a boring, laborious incremental passage vs solar panels that can do serious work, but even so, it's a technology that works much better in a decentralized infrastructure.

Solar towers and mirror arrays to heat water/sodium and drive turbines are a much more serious tech.

Basically, the future needs to be towards decentralization, your small town, or neighborhood.. or even you by yourself sets up a hybrid system, using solar, wind, thermal, biocombustibles (probably with hydrogen batteries for storing energy during the day) combo, selecting the combo that best suits your climate..

All of this talk of something from nothing go against the laws of physics, nature, and are basically a big stinky pile of bullshit (which should be composted, and used to grow something with some value).

 

[BudToaster]

Here is a link to a page about a free energy idea i saw in my alumni mag (Technology Review) several years ago ... (link still works) ... Hyper Energy Theory:
http://rvarspace.tripod.com/

On the classical hyper-energy field equations governing all aspects of big bang cosmology.
(Styled for Phys. Rev. D15)

INTRODUCTION: (Last updated February 23, 2005)

The present crisis in fundamental science.



In his 1998 book, What Remains to be Discovered, [1] Sir John Maddox, past editor of Nature for 23 years, calls attention to “the present crisis in fundamental science" which stems from the 65 year old incompatibility of general relativity theory with quantum theory, and the related 40 year old problem of big bang cosmology (BBC). According to Maddox, this crisis has been calling, with increasing clarity and anxiety, for “a new physics, regulated by principles not yet imagined”, [1, p. 21] that will introduce itself in the following three ways: [1, pp. 98-120]

1. By the readily quantizable description of gravity which it provides.
2. By the deeper understanding of space, time, and matter, which it provides in doing so, the need for which is “now self evident.”
3. By its intrinsic suitability for modeling all aspects of big bang cosmology.

But Maddox carefully distinguishes between the possibility of merely discovering such a new physics, which could eventually lead to a mathematically well formulated theory of everything (TOE), and the less likely possibility of discovering a fully formulated (TOE). [1, p.21] This belief is supported by Steven Weinberg's perception of the quest for fundamental theorists, which he stated in his 1986 Dirac Memorial Lecture on “The Final Laws of Physics.” Namely:

...“To look for a simple set of physical principles, which have about them the greatest sense of inevitability, and from which everything we know about physics can, in principle, be derived,” not discounting the prediction of his colleague John Wheeler; that, “when we eventually know the final laws of physics, it will surprise us that they weren't obvious from the beginning.” [2]

i don't understand it (haven't studied it yet - i didn't do that well in physics at the 'Tute -- actually computers were far more interesting to me at the time (1966-1970)

Also there is no mention of the Hamel Spinner in this thread. That concept really peaks my interest.

Here's a link: http://www.world-famous.com/DavidHamel.html

 

[ixnay007]

Here is a link to a page about a free energy idea i saw in my alumni mag (Technology Review) several years ago ... (link still works) ... Hyper Energy Theory:
http://rvarspace.tripod.com/



i don't understand it (haven't studied it yet - i didn't do that well in physics at the 'Tute -- actually computers were far more interesting to me at the time (1966-1970)

Also there is no mention of the Hamel Spinner in this thread. That concept really peaks my interest.

Here's a link: http://www.world-famous.com/DavidHamel.html

It's a neat idea, until you figure out that it's running (almost) frictionlessly, and to obtain energy to do work, you need to introduce friction.

 

[BudToaster]

i don't know about that ... one he made flew away

 

[ixnay007]

So he says..

 

[BudToaster]

oh, man! there were witnesses ... but no youtube

 

[ixnay007]

On the site, there's three postage stamp sized images, and two lines of text.

He also claims aliens gave him the tech. And left him some nice BC buds all over the house.

Excuse me if I take his claims with a bit of salt.

 

[BudToaster]

i do too ... just mind candy perhaps, but so tantalizing, and what if it's true? ... not that hard to try, magnets are cheap -- i just need some time.

 

[NiteTiger]

So, corporations do not put others down.

You don't think large companies squash potential competition in its infancy? Really?

Dude those guys building and researcing solar tech don't need government funding. Leave government funding for weapons tech.

I never said they needed government funding? I just said that you can't discount government involvement in emerging technology, because new technology can have serious political ramifications.

'National Security' is the swiftest way I can think for a technology to get swept into a dark corner where it will never see the light of day.

I don't see how any government, institution can have a monopoly on Science.

Maybe I phrased poorly - there is not a monopoly on science per se, but on that science translating into usable technology? Yeah, I'd say there is effectively a monopoly. The goal may not be suppressing science because it is science, but to protect business interests.

I was kinda sorta following you, until you went off the deep end. Hydrogen cells aren't getting any more feasible, not so much due to the 1 to a little bit less than one conversions (you get hydrogen by splitting water into oxygen and hydrogen molecules, then burning the hydrogen you obtain less energy than you put in.. damn laws of thermodynamics) or the fact that storing hydrogen is unfeasible (it's one of the smallest molecules known in gas form, and it's hard to make containers that can hold it) which is related to the difficulty in transporting and distributing it..

I was not discussing the merits or feasibility, to be clear, and I'm well aware of how it is converted.

The whole food poisoning issue isn't that weird, my mom alone got salmonella from a dish that we all ate from.. it was a single piece of chicken that wasn't perfectly cooked.

Eh, yeah the food poisoning thing might be a little out there, I'll admit it. But out of the realm of consideration? No.

I'm sure all the anti-nuclear hippies would be just thrilled beyond belief to know they're actually working for the oil companies.

Huh?

Nuclear works just fine, but it's an investment only governments can justify.

What? You're not saying that only governments have the resources to build nuclear plants, are you? Nuclear plants are highly regulated by the government, but they are built and operated by privately owned companies. Exelon, Entergy, and Dominion Resources to name the top three.

The only thing the government holds onto are the plants producing weapons grade materials. Even low grade uranium enrichment is handled by private companies like Cameco and USEC.

Basically, the future needs to be towards decentralization, your small town, or neighborhood.. or even you by yourself sets up a hybrid system, using solar, wind, thermal, biocombustibles (probably with hydrogen batteries for storing energy during the day) combo, selecting the combo that best suits your climate..

Agreed. I've found me a nice little spot that will allow me to make use of passive hydro, solar, and wind generation. More focus on the hydro element, because my area isn't prime for either solar or wind, but I will be able to make at least some use of all three.

Now if I could just afford to buy it...

Edit:

The whole issue of buying someone off, or completely burying a technology is pretty nonsensical also, if you just think about the logistics. Yeah, it's possible with a single inventor, but a small company, or lab? Meh, it takes a lot more collusion than can be easily explained.

What? That happens every single day. Big company snatches up small company lock, stock, and barrel without blinking an eye. Again, it's one of the practices Microsoft is infamous for using.

 

[GET MO]

Everybody knows that there has been free energy and efficient(doesnt destroy the earth or cause wars) energy for years and that the government and high powers wont let it out because of $$$. The fucked up part is nobody does anything about it.... You gon lead the way?

 

[mandingo]

You don't think large companies squash potential competition in its infancy? Really?



I never said they needed government funding? I just said that you can't discount government involvement in emerging technology, because new technology can have serious political ramifications.

'National Security' is the swiftest way I can think for a technology to get swept into a dark corner where it will never see the light of day.



Maybe I phrased poorly - there is not a monopoly on science per se, but on that science translating into usable technology? Yeah, I'd say there is effectively a monopoly. The goal may not be suppressing science because it is science, but to protect business interests.

Sure big businesses suppress competition and governments are lobbied hard by these folks. I was thinking, the one way 'they' the government control ideas and development is by letting the church dictate the syllabus in school these days but that is branching off..

The example I gave of the Solar Industry shows that its a open market. All the major car companies are developing hydrogen powered and electric vehicles. I don't see how any established industries can keep a good alternative idea down. We need energy and theres money in it.

Look at that Bloombox on the link. If that thing kicks off it would get a lot of people of the grid. Look at the folks interested in it. I'd say they had more clout.

I just don't like big conspiracies. I don't think you can keep a good idea or scientific knowledge secret. The only shit I can think of is maybe Archimedes's mirrors and Greek fire! Lost in time, myth who knows..

The catholic church tried to suppress galileo's idea but it came out in the end. You can't keep a good idea down.

Some Indian guy born in a remote village who never had a formal education can come up with all the latest established theories from first principles..


Goatcheese,

I made a mistake on Newton and the conservation of Energy. That stuff actually came much later during the industrial age and with the birth of Thermodynamics so its very much in our time.



Gravity and magnetism are interesting forces. Fuck knows maybe the government have alien tech.

I'm off to read Budtoaster's link as it looks interesting.

 

[NiteTiger]

They can keep a good alternative idea down. Sure, they can't squash the science behind the idea, but they can sure as hell squash the practical implementation of it.

Yes, solar is open market, which means that they can be bought and sold, like any other company. And yes, car companies are developing electric and hydrogen vehicles now. Why weren't they doing it before?

So maybe we're arguing two facets of the same point, and I just misunderstood. While it's true that science can't be 'undiscovered', the practical implementation surely can be blocked and delayed.

You point out the Church resisting Galileo, and him winning out in the end. While that is true, you need to look closer at your example. Glaileo spent the rest of his life under house arrest after opposing the church, and it wasn't until 1741 that the church allowed the printing of censored Galileo works. 1741, and Galileo was condemned for his works in 1633.

That's 108 years. I think it is safe to say that meets the criteria of suppressing science.

 

[ixnay007]

I was not discussing the merits or feasibility, to be clear, and I'm well aware of how it is converted.

I'm just saying, if someone's gonna get knocked off, I can't really see it happening for a tech like hydrogen fuel cells.

Eh, yeah the food poisoning thing might be a little out there, I'll admit it. But out of the realm of consideration? No.

If we apply that sort of reasoning.. there's nothing outside the realm of consideration.

Huh?

You say that nuclear being unfeasible suits oil companies just fine, no?

What? You're not saying that only governments have the resources to build nuclear plants, are you? Nuclear plants are highly regulated by the government, but they are built and operated by privately owned companies. Exelon, Entergy, and Dominion Resources to name the top three.

Where do they get the money to do so? Especially since they require gigantic investments, with little or no return within the first ten or 15 years.

The only thing the government holds onto are the plants producing weapons grade materials. Even low grade uranium enrichment is handled by private companies like Cameco and USEC.

The fact that the government contracts things like this out doesn't mean it's not the government who is responsible..

Agreed. I've found me a nice little spot that will allow me to make use of passive hydro, solar, and wind generation. More focus on the hydro element, because my area isn't prime for either solar or wind, but I will be able to make at least some use of all three.

Now if I could just afford to buy it...

That's the kicker, unforunately.

Edit:

What? That happens every single day. Big company snatches up small company lock, stock, and barrel without blinking an eye. Again, it's one of the practices Microsoft is infamous for using.

Yeah, but what they were doing doesn't all of a sudden disappear without a trace..

 

[NiteTiger]

I'm just saying, if someone's gonna get knocked off, I can't really see it happening for a tech like hydrogen fuel cells.

Really? I'm not trying to be an asshole, I'm just genuinely surprised. In this day and age, where people are gunned down for shoes, you don't think someone would consider the option of assassination to save a multi-billion dollar industry? People kill for much, much smaller stakes than that every hour. Even over a weed.

I personally believe that not only would someone be willing to do it, but that they'd be willing to do it for cheap. To be honest, I doubt that it hasn't been done at some point in these companies histories.

But, maybe that is just the pessimist in me, perhaps I'm too quick to see the vicious animal on two legs. Perhaps your view is correct. After all, it's all about balance. For every person like me who is willing to assume the worst of humanity, there needs to be one who believes the best.

Guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.

If we apply that sort of reasoning.. there's nothing outside the realm of consideration.

I guess that goes with my answer above I truly believe that nothing is beyond the realm of consideration when you're talking about industries with larger assets than many countries.

You say that nuclear being unfeasible suits oil companies just fine, no?

No, sorry, that's not what I was trying to say. My bad for the misunderstanding.

Where do they get the money to do so? Especially since they require gigantic investments, with little or no return within the first ten or 15 years.

Big business certainly has the capital to construct power plants on its own. Every day there are projects launched with a multi-billion dollar price tag, without financial input from a government. There are even private space programs, with billions needed for investment, that aren't even currently allowed to launch! That's an industry usually reserved for governments that has NO immediate prospects for profit.

Hell, Bill Gates could build a couple of reactors out of his own pocket if he decided to.

The government may offer incentives and programs like loan guarantees, and such, similar to HUD. But that does not = government owned.

The fact that the government contracts things like this out doesn't mean it's not the government who is responsible..

Who said it was contracted out? Just because it is nuclear doesn't mean it is run by the government.

That's the kicker, unforunately.

Yeah, unfortunately. It always comes down to money.

Yeah, but what they were doing doesn't all of a sudden disappear without a trace..

When a company and it's research are purchased, that is exactly what happens. You bury the research in a dark corner, and pin all the former employees down with either NDAs or shiny new jobs. Poof, for all intents and purposes, the tech has indeed disappeared.

 

[ixnay007]

Really? I'm not trying to be an asshole, I'm just genuinely surprised. In this day and age, where people are gunned down for shoes, you don't think someone would consider the option of assassination to save a multi-billion dollar industry? People kill for much, much smaller stakes than that every hour. Even over a weed.

I don't think you're trying to be an asshole (not yet at least ), I just don't see very much potential in hydrogen fuel cells. Certainly not enough to warrant killing someone and burning his lab down.

If it were some other sort of tech, maybe...

I personally believe that not only would someone be willing to do it, but that they'd be willing to do it for cheap. To be honest, I doubt that it hasn't been done at some point in these companies histories.

That doesn't mean that it happens every time, or that it happened that time. Don't fool yourself tough, someone who can do what you're postulating doesn't come cheap, most cheap contract killers will shoot you and take your wallet.

But, maybe that is just the pessimist in me, perhaps I'm too quick to see the vicious animal on two legs. Perhaps your view is correct. After all, it's all about balance. For every person like me who is willing to assume the worst of humanity, there needs to be one who believes the best.

Just a little bit of Occam's razor, don't attribute to malice what can be explained by many other more simple reasons..

Guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.

I don't think I'll lose any sleep over it

I guess that goes with my answer above I truly believe that nothing is beyond the realm of consideration when you're talking about industries with larger assets than many countries.

You're, I think, attributing levels of organization and malice to entities who aren't that organized (or malicious, though what they do might be seen as that..)

No, sorry, that's not what I was trying to say. My bad for the misunderstanding.

No probs.

Big business certainly has the capital to construct power plants on its own. Every day there are projects launched with a multi-billion dollar price tag, without financial input from a government. There are even private space programs, with billions needed for investment, that aren't even currently allowed to launch! That's an industry usually reserved for governments that has NO immediate prospects for profit.

The private space programs aren't billion dollar ops, there are prizes, it's more or less yacht racing for billionaires who don't like boats..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_new_nuclear_power_plants

All the existing nuke plants were built by monopolies (government approved ones, obviously), or state owned power companies..

Hell, Bill Gates could build a couple of reactors out of his own pocket if he decided to.

Maybe if he wanted one to power the microsoft campus..

The government may offer incentives and programs like loan guarantees, and such, similar to HUD. But that does not = government owned.

None of them could have been built without government intervention..

Who said it was contracted out? Just because it is nuclear doesn't mean it is run by the government.

Yeah, unfortunately. It always comes down to money.




When a company and it's research are purchased, that is exactly what happens. You bury the research in a dark corner, and pin all the former employees down with either NDAs or shiny new jobs. Poof, for all intents and purposes, the tech has indeed disappeared.

I've seen it happen, the tech doesn't disappear, people don't forget about what they've seen, or invested in..

 

[Anti]

I participated in the "FREE ENERGY" discussions on usenet about 10 years ago. Much smarter folks than the ones appearing in this thread tore each other a new one every day from both sides of the fence. People posted their ideas for criticism, people claimed to have accomplished things...

...every single one of them was debunked thoroughly!

If you've got the plans sitting in front of you right now to build a free energy machine and you don't build it, you're admitting that you don't really believe it.

Mortgage your damn house, sell your car, get your free energy machine built! You'll get your money back! I promise! What do you have to lose? BUILD IT.

(unless you can't because it's all pie-in-the-sky bullshit.)

That Lutec website hasn't been updated in 3 years, and there are NO links anywhere on that site that would allow you to buy one of their amazing innovations. The website itself looks like it was put together by an amateur. Certainly not by a professional venture intent on making a name for itself by providing a superior energy source.

Tesla was a cool dude. Free energy has yet to be proven.

Instead of flaming me about it... build the fucking machine and prove me wrong.

 

[ixnay007]

You're just part of the conspiracy, man!

 

[GoatCheese]

The Joseph Newman Story

The Joseph Newman Story

The Joseph Newman Story


http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8837004260826102354#

This is the story of Joseph Newman and his (FREE) Energy Machine



See ...people have been building these (environmentally) Free Energy since Tesla and these old timers.





http://www.eco-trees.org/homemade-magnetic-generator-generates-24kw-of-free-electricity/


"An Australian engineer claiming to have built a free energy generator which could change the world. The new generator works on the principles of electromagnetism to provide up to five times the amount of power the machine consumes.
The inventor says that he’s prototype can run constantly for years without stopping, generating 24KWs of power each day. The machine has been termed ‘revolutionary’, being the perfect option of those who don’t want to pay for electricity ever again. The free energy generator can be made available in a year and you can buy it for an estimated cost of about AU $5000..."


sky news free energy electric magnetic power generator turbine australia
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=adfgMWQB_6o






Check these John Hutchison clips out ...very cool!!! ..Tesla technology/ Ether physics in action..



New Energy Series 2: John Hutchison Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3LhvpC2lsCs



New Energy Series 2: John Hutchison Part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iNeshiY4ixI




...it just doesn't exists, right??!

.."Aether" ..or in another words;

"ALL filled up, and ElectroMagnetically charged Cosmos" ..."It's not there cause my gov. says so.." ..bye for now Daniel ...i mean denial ...heh-heh

 

[mandingo]

I participated in the "FREE ENERGY" discussions on usenet about 10 years ago. Much smarter folks than the ones appearing in this thread tore each other a new one every day from both sides of the fence. People posted their ideas for criticism, people claimed to have accomplished things...

...every single one of them was debunked thoroughly!

If you've got the plans sitting in front of you right now to build a free energy machine and you don't build it, you're admitting that you don't really believe it.

Mortgage your damn house, sell your car, get your free energy machine built! You'll get your money back! I promise! What do you have to lose? BUILD IT.

(unless you can't because it's all pie-in-the-sky bullshit.)

That Lutec website hasn't been updated in 3 years, and there are NO links anywhere on that site that would allow you to buy one of their amazing innovations. The website itself looks like it was put together by an amateur. Certainly not by a professional venture intent on making a name for itself by providing a superior energy source.

Tesla was a cool dude. Free energy has yet to be proven.

Instead of flaming me about it... build the fucking machine and prove me wrong.

hehe! I think the US patent office feel the same way. I read they will only accept patents for perpetual motion machines if theres a working model. someone can file for a patent for their machine and it would look good to potential investors being filled and all but it it not really filled , just stamped or submitted.

The laws of thermodynamics rule but I like Tesla, superconductors...and think its still early days in the 2nd industrial revolution. Just build a giant induction motor out in space I say.