Talk:Free energy suppression

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on April 10, 2007. The result of the discussion was Keep.
Paranormal Portal
This article falls under the scope of WikiProject Paranormal, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the paranormal and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, help with current tasks, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and discussions.
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale.
Archive
Archives
/Archive 0
/Archive 1


Contents

[edit] Good intent bad sources

Perfectblues try on clarifying matters in the intro is certainly well-intended. But whether it can be saved depends on two open problems:

  • Is the alleged suppression of renewable energy sources known was "Free energy suppression"? Wikipedia should doucument terminology, not introduce it.
  • Reliable, secondardy sources for the "free energy" part. I.e. is there a scholarly work or notable journalism about the topic.

Look at Perfectblue's suggestions:

The conspiracy theory follows two tracks. 1) That the renewable energy sector (Solar, wind, and hydroelectric generation, etc) is being held back by vested interests, who are restricting expansion and suppressing the emergence more efficient technologies capable of drawing more power from natural sources that current technology <ref name="smithadmend">[http://www.geocities.com/Eureka/1905/AMENDEDNOI.doc. Solar development cooperative/smith's amended], motion of notice of intent to claim compensation, Solar development cooperative 'Lighting the Way With Creation’s Original Remedy', Corona del Mar, CA 92625 July 19, 1999.</ref>, while also acting to suppress alternatives to fossil fuels such as Bio-diesel, and devices that could reduce pollution levels, or increase energy/fuel efficiency of existing technology. 2) That devices capable of extracting significant and usable power form preexisting energy reservoirs (see Zero-point energy) for little or no cost, are possible, but are being suppressed<ref>Free Energy - A Reality Not a Conspiracy. (Video) Time frame 00:35 - 00:45.</ref><ref>Free Energy: The Race to Zero Point. Lightworks Audio Video, June 16, 1997.</ref>

All three references given, are primary, self-published sources. They may be usable for an article about its resepective author (which we thankfully don't have), but not for anything other.

Pjacobi 08:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Primary sources: "Piece of information or evidence that was created by someone who witnessed first hand or was part of the historical events that are being described". These are sources which, usually, are recorded by someone who participated in, witnessed, or lived through the event. These are also usually authoritative and fundamental documents concerning the subject under consideration. This includes published original accounts, published original works, or published original research. Physical objects can be primary sources. Wikipedia would not ordinarily be considered a primary source (see Wikipedia:No original research).
Secondary sources: "Piece of writings which were not penned contemporaneously with the events in question". These are sources which, usually, are accounts, works, or research that analyze, assimilate, evaluate, interpret, and/or synthesize primary sources. These are not as authoritative and are supplemental documents concerning the subject under consideration. This includes published accounts, published works, or published research. Wikipedia would be considered a secondary source on some occasions.
Tertiary sources: These are sources which, on average, do not fall into the above two levels. They consist of generalized research of a specific subject under consideration. Tertiary sources are analyzed, assimilated, evaluated, interpreted, and/or synthesized from secondary sources, also. These are not authoritative and are just supplemental documents concerning the subject under consideration. Wikipedia would be considered a tertiary source on some occasions.
J. D. Redding 02:43, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


Sorry about the bullets, but you've raised a number of issues.

  1. It's best to think of free energy suppression as a phenomona of belief, not terminology.
  2. I'd like some peer-reviewed articles about Bigfoot, for or against, believer or skeptic, either would be nice, but it's just not a subject that gets published all that often. We have to work with what we have. A self published primary source won't stand up as hard science under WP:RS, but here it's just being presented as opinion. The sources are proof of belief, not proof of science.
  3. I don't feel that the page should be about actual actual free energy suppression, only the belief in it. As such, primary sources are acceptable.

perfectblue 11:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Google Scholar search for "Bigfoot anthropology" gives me over 300 hits, obviously that's only a very crude estimate of the availability of literature on the topic which can fail in both direction. But you can learn about some journals which seem to be potential sources:
Pjacobi 13:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


If only it were that simple. In order to satisfy the skeptics who haunt such pages, it would have to be a peer-reviewed veterinary, anthropology or zoological journal or it could only be used to give base details. Many of the skeptics around here won't even except the JSPR for basic details. I'd like a good solid article from Nature quoting both skeptics and believers presenting the best evidence and the best rebuttals. It'd also like a dynamite body and naturally bouncy hair that looks good first thing in the morning, but I'm not likely to get that either. - perfectblue 13:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, above mentioned journals, are peer-reviewed, scientific journals. Especially scholary publication in anthropology are often completelely ignored in favor of whacky Google-jobs. --Pjacobi 13:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Added a couple of third party sources - perfectblue 12:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Funny you mention that, "in order to satisfy the skeptics". You mean satisfy the people who have suppressed the technologies? With the help of the big news media they can easily suppress everything remotely related to free energy on wikipedia. No, not on this page I think. This page is about the suppression it self. The stalking is a perfect example of how suppression gets done. We should write a paragraphs about that.

84.104.135.195 (talk) 04:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Steven Mark NPOV

This section is both poorly written and in violation of WP:NPOV - it reads like an advertisement for Mr. Mark's statements. His statements are quoted without question, allegations of slander are leveled at his skeptics, and the section was clearly written by a believer in free energy suppression insofar as that sources such as overunity.com are cited. This section is in serious need of revision or removal. -Interested2 03:02, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I made an edit to this section and it was reverted by an anon; I'd like to know why, and am returning it as the change is referenced. Titanium Dragon 06:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

The entire section seems to be lacking reliable sources; can we get a better source than is currently there for the section? Titanium Dragon 06:50, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
There's no reference for the accusations of fraud that I can find. If accurate, please link references to the appropriate statements. I see your version has a better tone, but I saw an unsourced change in content. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 08:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Its the first reference in the list of references; I basically just read through them trolling for dirt.
The problem is it appears four of the references are from the same website and the fifth doesn't look particularly realiable either. The section is labelled "notable free energy proponents", but it seems like none of those sources establish notability (and I removed a sixth source, which was a YouTube video) and don't seem particularly reliable. Titanium Dragon 10:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I have deleted the section - it is plainly non-notable. See WP:FRINGE LeContexte (talk) 11:42, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Material to include

Advanced and conventional free and renewable energy technologies that involve natural phenomena (such as sunlight, wind, tides and geothermal heat) have been repressed.[1] This includes the adoption of workable free energy technology that can provide energy at reduced cost to consumers, reduce pollution levels, or increase energy/fuel efficiency.

This was taken out a few months ago (a bit after the article was 1st generated) ... the article at the time included non-advanced suppressed technology. People have re-purposed this article to exclude such material. J. D. Redding 00:12, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

YES, this becomes even more evident (or shall we say ironic?) when you try to find a wiki page about any of the suppressed inventors. If you are lucky they have only just been merged with their inventions. It should however be impossible for the suppressors to destroy this page. I'm very curious what they are going to make up in order to make the suppressed technology disappear from the page about suppression. I happen to suffer from this free energy suppression "delusion", so I have created this short overview.

[edit] Electric motors

Does anyone object to adding this?

84.104.135.195 (talk) 03:39, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] N.B.S. "disproved" Newman motor

[edit] Mythbusters "disproved" Bedini motor

(no comments)

No comments required. They disproved it. — NRen2k5, 18:58, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The fact is that they made a machine that newer could have done anything, and as bedini told in an interview the motor didn't even have magnets and could never have generated electricity! Still though, they made it look like they tried to make it work, though they already knew that their "version" of his motor never could do anything.

It was only an attempt to discredit and ruin Bedini's reputation when he in recent times had gotten comfimation from many independent inventors that they had copied his design in the motor and made it work.--Nabo0o (talk) 18:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Gosh, if you had a credible reference for that, rather than an unfounded assertion, it might be something interesting to put in the article.Prebys (talk) 18:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
The problem is newer the magnitude of evidence that is put forward, but allmost allways the ignorence and unwilingness to see it for youself. --Nabo0o (talk) 18:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Six misspellings in a single sentence is a little hard to parse, but do I take your response to mean that you don't, in fact, have a credible reference?Prebys (talk) 20:16, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Bad spelling, i know.

The refference i would recomend you was from a documentrary directed by Anthony J. Craddock which was about Bedini and his consepts of how the motor works, and also an interview with Tom Bearden. In the interview with John Bedini he tells how the guys from mythbusters isn't even close to replicating his devise and that it in no way could have generated any usable energy in the way they had set it up. It was only stunt to discredit him and his invention, and also all the others on the Bedini SSG yahoo group who had comfirmed their sucsess. Sadly, the entire movie has been removed from google videos, so you need to buy it if you want to see it. (alltough i have it on my computer)....... --Nabo0o (talk) 09:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

You're saying the only reference other than Bedini himself is Tom Bearden?!?!? I think we differ on the definition of "credible". You realize that Tom Bearden is a total nutball who admits he can't even make his own device work. Since I can hear all the Bearden-blather I want on YouTube, I am unlikely to buy the DVD.Prebys (talk) 15:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Where have you heard that the MEG doesn't work?

The problem for Tom Bearden was that he didn't get financial support that he needed in other to make the MEG reach the market. It did already produse an output of nearly 2 kilowatts, and dind't have any large complications with it. The only problem was that he couldn't mass distribute it before he had real scientific analyzes that explained how every function of the devise worked, and so far he had only finetuned it into creating an useable output, but that isn't enough if you want to make it a comercial product that can have stability and also work in the same way for everyone.

And in order to do that he would have needed to hire scienticst who were experts in four different spesial fields, and he could not effort that. Now, im not saying that you shuld buy it, but im saying that if you want to know in deept what it is he's talking about, you can go and look for a "free" version of it on the web.--Nabo0o (talk) 09:54, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you read the MEG article and supporting references. Bearden has never demonstrated a working prototype to anyone but himself. Nevertheless, he claimed the device worked when he patented it in 2001. At that time, he promised a commercial product "in a year or so". Now, six years later, he admits there's no working prototype and he still needs "$10-12 million" to bring it to market. He never really explains what's the money's for, since it seems like a device like this would sort of sell itself. Your claim is, as I understand it, is that he can't sell it because he doesn't really know how it works, right? That's strange, because his website and Youtube are choc-a-bloc full of "Bearden-speak" gobbledegook. Nevertheless, are you really saying that no one would buy a working perpetual motion machine unless they had a scientific explanation of how it worked?!?!? OK, let's say that's so. You can get a very good physicist for $200K/yr, including benefits, so $10 million would buy you 50 man-years of effort. I guess you're telling me we're going to have to wait a while for the Tom Bearden revolution. I, for one, won't hold my breath :)Prebys (talk) 13:42, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] John Searl, imprisoned for making his own electricity

Source? I find precious little on the topic myself, other than that he was imprisoned for stealing electricity. — NRen2k5, 15:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Making your own electricity was considered theft. Readers will be unable to get a picture of the suppression if we don't list all the imprisoned inventors. Meyer, and Pantone also got locked up. The context is the main drive of the conspiracy theory.84.104.135.195 (talk) 21:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I haven't found any reliable references about Searl's imprisonment, and those I have found say he was stealing energy from the grid. Meyer wasn't locked up; he was forced to repay investors the money they had given him for "dealerships" after being found guilty of "gross and egregious fraud" in civil court. Pantone was imprisoned for good old fashioned securities fraud (not surprising after he hooked up with the likes of Dennis Lee)Prebys (talk) 19:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] David Hamel debunked by Mythbusters

I don’t know about his other contributions, but his antigravity generator was a total failure — NRen2k5, 15:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that would be exactly the treatment he has been getting all his life. 84.104.135.195 (talk) 08:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

you don’t need the Mythbusters to tell you as much. — NRen2k5, 15:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Mythbusters debunked the Minto wheel, Hamel, Bedini. Nothing worked in their hands. This is how free energy suppression works.

They could have shown everyone on the whole world a working Bedini battery charger but in stead they ridiculed him on TV. John was willing to show them how to build it. And they are still not willing to talk with him about it.

More luxurious TV suppression as that I can not imagine. you? 84.104.135.195 (talk) 08:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Floyd A. Sweet

Never heard of him. Google tells me he worked with Bearden, with magnets. Magnets are not a source of energy, let alone free energy, so this is yet another dead end. — NRen2k5, 15:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

The conspiracy theory doesn't need to be right or wrong. It is merely based on the hundreds of inventors. Here is Floyd's story.

http://www.panacea-bocaf.org/floydsweet.htm

84.104.135.195 (talk) 08:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Anything endorsed by Tom Bearden doesn't need any further suppression.Prebys (talk) 19:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Howard Johnson

Another one I’ve never heard of, who also claimed to have made a free energy machine using magnets. (This is not looking good so far.) — NRen2k5, 15:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I do not have to prove the conspiracy theory, the theory is not on trial here. You have never heard of the suppressed inventor. This is what suppression means. If you would know about him then it wouldn't be suppressed.

I didn't see any reason in your reasoning not to put the context of the conspiracy theory on the page about the conspiracy theory?

I understand it doesn't make much sense looking at each case individually, it's the number of people that makes the theory interesting. 84.104.135.195 (talk) 08:34, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

A conspiracy would involve suppression of working technology. These devices were suppressed by the fact they don't workPrebys (talk) 19:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Ren was questioning his notability, and I'd tend to agree; he doesn't seem to be particularly notable. We are not here to promote your viewpoint; we are here to write a good encyclopedia. Titanium Dragon (talk) 11:58, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cars

[edit] water powered car by, Daniel Dingle

Water is not a fuel. This is Chemistry 101. — NRen2k5, 15:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Dingle is a former NASA scientist. He claims his water car technology was suppressed. Sure, it's just a kind of electrolysis cell using salt as the electrolyte. If it works is not important. He claims he was suppressed.84.104.135.195 (talk) 21:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

So? I can claim I’m the Queen Of France.… — NRen2k5, 17:25, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Dingle (sometimes "Dingel") also claims it's patented, although no patent exists[2]. He is at various times described as "Former NASA Scientist", "Former NASA Engineer" (N.B. engineers and scientists are different), and "Former NASA employee" (ie, could have been a janitor). In fact, there's no evidence he ever had anything to do with NASA. Jeez, even on Wikipedia there have to be some standards for what to include. For example, claims based entirely on YouTube videos probably shouldn't qualify.Prebys (talk) 20:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Doing a bit more research, where did anyone get the idea this guy ever worked for NASA? Here is a whole piece on the car [3]. He never mentions NASA, and certainly no one who speaks English as badly as he does ever worked in the US as a scientist or engineer. Also, he doesn't mention anything about "suppression"; he just says he didn't like the terms of the offers. Please try to stay on topic.Prebys (talk) 22:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] yull brown's browns gas

I won’t even bother touching the conspiracy aspect of this. He didn’t invent Brown’s Gas. It’s just a name for a stoichiometric mixture of oxygen and hydrogen. It also isn’t free energy. It’s just the Water Car scam played from a different angle. — NRen2k5, 15:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC) No lets bother touching the conspiracy aspect. He holds patents, his machines have been on the market for more then 50 years now he got death threads and was murdered. That should be enough to list him?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brown%27s_gas&oldid=137348205

This is my page: http://clean-nuclear-energy.go-here.nl (feel free to copy and past it's text to a more appropriate location) I clearly buy into this conspiracy theory. But the denial of the conspiracy makes up half it's existence. 84.104.135.195 (talk) 21:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

“He holds patents, his machines have been on the market for more then 50 years now he got death threads and was murdered.”
I won’t argue about the patents. Those are fairly unimportant. Something doesn’t have to work to be patented. Same goes for how long his machines have been on the market. As for the death threats and murder, you’ll have to show me the source of this information so I can verify it myself.
“This is my page: http://clean-nuclear-energy.go-here.nl”
Wow, that’s really terrible. — NRen2k5, 17:42, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Josef Papp

Right. Papp, who never produced a working engine, and managed to kill a man with a non-working one, and then played the “blame the skeptic” game. — NRen2k5, 15:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC) You changed the story. The skeptic was blown up by a running engine, the engine didn't have a gas tank. Forensics found no fuel or explosives so Papp was not guilty of murder but no credible cite that I know of. 84.104.135.195 (talk) 21:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

No credible cite. That’s a recurring problem with this tinfoil hat stuff. Here’s a tip for you: If there’s no credible cite for a certain piece of information, it’s probably because it isn’t true! — NRen2k5, 17:47, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
The witness to the whole Papp motor thing was Richard Feynman[4], who claims the motor was most likely running on a wall plug. In any event, Papp wasn't killed, so how did this incident "suppress" the technology?Prebys (talk) 20:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Stanley Meyer was poisoned

Bzzt! Wrong! Meyer invented nothing, and died of an aneurism. — NRen2k5, 15:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

The Water_fuel_cell has it's own page. I think the suppression starts where water-fuel is deemed a perpetual motion device. Nothing in the Meyer theories suggests a closed system. Even if it's a million percent efficient it still needs watter to run. 84.104.135.195 (talk) 21:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

“I think the suppression starts where water-fuel is deemed a perpetual motion device. Nothing in the Meyer theories suggests a closed system.”
It is a perpetual motion device – or more specifically, a free energy device, because it assumes you can get energy out of nowhere. Whether it’s an open system or a closed system is irrelevant. It doesn’t produce nearly as much energy as it consumes.
“Even if it's a million percent efficient it still needs watter to run.”
If it worked, that would be trivial, since it would produce water as exhaust, and you could recycle it through the system. The problem is that it isn’t a million percent efficient. It’s not even 100%. Not even close. In the end, all it does is waste energy. — NRen2k5, 18:08, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
That whole "closed loop" think may seem simple to you and me, but you wouldn't believe how much time is spent arguing about it on the talk:water_fuel_cell page. You may be beating your head against the wall.Prebys (talk) 20:22, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Paul Pantone was framed for securities fraud

Nope, wasn’t framed. — NRen2k5, 15:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC) There are enough people who agree he was framed. Just saying it isn't so doesn't unmake that. View the videos of a motor running on Pepsi others running on 50% watter. Among other things he build 280 mpg car then was locked away over 25k just like Meyer. Apparently there was no market opportunity for a 200+ mpg vehicle. If there was then 25k would be laughable. Don't you think? 84.104.135.195 (talk) 21:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

“There are enough people who agree he was framed.”
Enough people for what? Millions of people believe the moon landings were faked, but that doesn’t make it true, either.
“Just saying it isn't so doesn't unmake that.”
Just saying it is so doesn’t make it.
“View the videos of a motor running on Pepsi others running on 50% watter.”
I have, and I’m not impressed. Videos are easily faked. And these guys don’t even give numbers. You could probably run an ordinary engine on a 50-50 gas-water mix. It would run like crap, but it would still run. Just because someone shows you something doesn’t mean it’s exactly what they say it is. — NRen2k5, 19:56, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
The Apollo hoax has it's own page. The GEET technology is original research , there are "only" videos[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15] We are not trying to research the tech (I think), Paul got tricked so many times, it has become hard to miss.
- He got four months for securities fraud. After three and a half(March 2006) he was transferred to the mental hospital with no time limit set.
- The court contends that he's not yet competent to receive sentencing.
- Paul is being denied phone and visitation rights, his mail never leaves the hospital.
- The Utah court refused to acknowledge its own lack of jurisdiction. Pantone’s corporation was based in Nevada, the "fraud" took place in Idaho.
- His patient advocate is married to the woman who would represent the hospital in any court disputes with patients. but...
- Paul’s marriage therapist Dr. Wilfred Higashi, former head of mental health for the state of Utah is dismissed over conflict of interest.
- At the hospital, Paul was told, “Mr. Pantone, you are delusional . . . and we are going to fix you.”
- Through a relentless series of frustrating status hearings since March of 2006, the Utah courts have repeatedly denied Paul Pantone his constitutional right to represent himself.
- The court has also denied Pantone his constitutional right to have a skilled friend of the court represent him, because Pantone’s friend is not a BAR certified attorney in Utah.
That is just the tip of the iceberg[16]. I read a news article where his "doctor" said he was nuts because he thought the state turned against him. You ever hear such a good reason to lock some one up? (I can try find the link if we need it) Paul turned down offers for millions got threatened as a result then was locked away over 25K. There are lots of working GEET devices and there are enough other water powered car technologies to fuel the conspiracy.
There has to be a way to turn this into a good article? What are your thoughts? 84.104.135.195 (talk) 10:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Stick to the facts, present them in a neutral manner and provide legitimate sources, and you’re fine. Looks like you’ll have your work cut out for you. — NRen2k5, 18:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] MIT Plasmatron

In 1995 MIT patented a technology much like Pantone's Fuel Processor[17]. "The microplasmatron fuel converter (plasmatron, winner of the 1999 Discover Award for Technological Innovation) is a device that would be used on a vehicle to transform gasoline or other hydrocarbons into hydrogen rich gas."[18] here is a video [19]. Their plans with the technology don't look very promising: "Use of plasma hydrogen technology to treat diesel exhaust shows promise for meeting strict 2010 EPA requirements."[20]. In older documentation they talk of "Capability for processing a very wide range of fuel (including diesel, biomass derived fuels, heavy oils)"[21] No talk of Pepsi jet but it's close enough to the GEET to see the conspiracy in it (for me).84.104.135.195 (talk) 10:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

And it isn’t free energy in either case. If it works, it’s a way to turn raw materials into easily usable fuel. — NRen2k5, 18:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Also, except for the use of the term "plasma", the plasmatron bears no resemblance at all to Pantone's device. Plus, there is no evidence it's being suppressed in any way. Plus, as you say, it's not free energy.Prebys (talk) 20:50, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] John Kanzius

5/22/2007 "Retired TV station owner and broadcast engineer, John Kanzius, wasn't looking for an answer to the energy crisis. He was looking for a cure for cancer."[22]84.104.135.195 (talk) 10:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

And he found neither. His method of splitting water is novel, but it isn’t free energy. I don’t know if it has even yet been determined how it stacks up against electrolysis. — NRen2k5, 18:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rudolf Diesel had an unfortunate accident

Did Diesel even have anything to do with free energy? You’re really reaching now. — NRen2k5, 15:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC) Diesel wanted to make an engine that could run on anything. For example hemp oil. The Diesel engine is very popular in Europe in contrast with the US. 84.104.135.195 (talk) 21:37, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Any thing, or any oil? — NRen2k5, 20:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Great American Streetcar Scandal

Shame you missed this. — NRen2k5, 15:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC) I don't know anything about this. It still doesn't have to be true for people to believe in it?WP:FRINGE84.104.135.195 (talk) 21:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Who killed the electric car

The 1990s electric car was stillborn. — NRen2k5, 15:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC) The film wonders what happened with the electric auto. People loved their e-car but they had to return it for destruction. This lends credibility to the conspiracy theory. 84.104.135.195 (talk) 21:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Electric cars may be a good idea, but they are not "free energy" by any definition of the term. Whether or not there is a conspiracy to suppress them, they are OT for this article.Prebys (talk) 22:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] hemp oil and ethyl alcohol

The diesel engine was designed it to run on vegetable and seed oils like hemp. Henry Ford's first Model-T was built to run on hemp gasoline. "There is fuel in every bit of vegetable matter that can be fermented" 1925 -Henry Ford 84.104.135.195 (talk) 22:18, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Point being? My point will be that unless you’re stealing or taking something unwanted (e.g. used cooking oil), for now hemp oil, vegetable oil, canola oil, etc. will be more expensive than diesel. It’s possible, and cool to use oils other than diesel, but that doesn’t mean it’s practical. — NRen2k5, 20:11, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts on this. Diesel typically refers a petroleum product while Mr Diesel intended his engines to run on seed oils and vegetable oils (including hemp). In other words a Diesel engine is suppose to run on cooking oil. Using local resources isn't stealing, something unwanted or more expensive. Hemp is very profitable for farmers. Agricultural Commissioner Roger Johnson says: "It's legal for us to import the (hemp) stalks and the seed and turn them into clothes and food, but it's not legal for us to grow it. What's the sense in that?"; North Dakota and other states are considering a lawsuit to challenge the ban.[23] William Randolph Hearst associated marijuana with hemp and published the stories of Harry J. Anslinger Harry J. Anslinger#The campaign against marijuana 1930-1937. As a result the US is the only major industrialized nation where hemp is considered a drug. In the Netherlands adults can legally buy pot while even Medical cannabis is forbidden in the US.[24] Even doctors may-not prescribe the fuel.[25] It's easy to see how the conspiracy theory works really? 84.104.135.195 (talk) 04:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

It’s easy to see the wilful ignorance behind it. You’re still overlooking the practicality and cost effectiveness of using vegetable or hemp oil as a fuel. They’re not as good as with diesel. But since that little fact interferes with your theory……… — NRen2k5, 18:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

This article concerns the supposed suppression of free energy technology. While "free" can legitimately be extended to include very cheap things like water, hemp oil is NOT free, ethyl alcohol is NOT free, and electric cars are NOT free. Please try to stay on topic and don't try to make this a forum for every conspiracy theory under the sun.Prebys (talk) 21:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, conspiracy theorists -are crazy-, and I'm not exactly sure where conspiracy theories about biofeuls would fit (unless they have their own article). However, I also agree that they are not "free energy" in the sense of the conspiracy theory, though on the other hand, energy conspiracy theorists seldom know enough about what they're talking about to make that particular distinction in the first place. It may be intimiately related to the point where it may be worth noting, but that said, I haven't seen a lot about it and it doesn't seem to really fall in the same category as the perpetual motion machines/water engines/ect. that this article seems to be focused on. Titanium Dragon (talk) 11:54, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, one could imagine a separate page on the alleged suppression of alternative energy technology, such as electric cars, wind energy, or other cases where there's no question the technology itself actually exists. While I'm personally skeptical about the level of such suppression, there's probably enough out there to build a decent article. However, as you say, many of these people can't distinguish between an electric car and a car which claims to run on water, so the noise level is likely to be high.Prebys (talk) 15:19, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] TESLA

Nikola Tesla stated, when asked if the principle of his worldwide wireless system of "free energy" would upset the dominant economic system, "It is badly upset already".[5]
The Tesla stuff does belong in this article. Tesla was claimed several methods of free generation of energy. Read up on Tesla work and his patents. J. D. Redding 00:12, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Just did some inline comments on your material, 84.104.135.195. Personally I wouldn’t try putting any of it in. — NRen2k5, Disinfo Agent 002, 15:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC) Thank you for the feedback, I was aware of how the story behind each claimant works out.

The conspiracy theory doesn't require proof for people to believe or disbelieve it. Just disbelieving in it already establishes the conspiracy theory.84.104.135.195 (talk) 22:18, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The existance and notability of conspiracy theories are quite seperate. Titanium Dragon (talk) 01:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Attempted rewriting

To try to understand the article I had to rewrite some. It was verbose and repetitive, and had imperfect sentences. I wondered if some was translated into English by a native speaker of the original who was not au fait with English. My rewrite did not get very far into the unencyclopedic muddle.--SilasW (talk) 21:21, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Extraterrestrial Technology

I noticed a sentence about extraterrestrial technology in there; is this a core component of many of these conspiracy theories, or was this random vandalism that never got caught or an isolated sentence fragment which no longer makes sense? If it needs to stay in, can someone please give it some context? Titanium Dragon (talk) 12:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I didn't put it there, but it's definitely not vandalism, as there are a lot of people who believe this[6][7][8]. For example, Zero Point Energy (ZPE) is one of the more common "explanations" for UFO propulsion[9]. These beliefs seem to feed primarily to the huge overlap in conspiracy communities; that is, people who believe in massive free energy cover ups also tend to believe in UFO cover ups (not to mention Moon Hoax cover ups, Philadelphia experiment cover ups, 9/11 cover ups, etc, etc). Thus, the "reality" of UFO's is used to bolster the "reality" of ZPE. It's probably OK to leave it here. When I get some time, I'll try to improve the wording.Prebys (talk) 17:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Alright, was just making sure. It felt very out of place there, and while I was aware of the overlap in conspiracy theory communities ("You think a massive worldwide collection of scientists is conspiring to create a mass of global warming data? That's like believing that the moon landing was shot on a soundstage in Nevada!" "You don't actually believe we went to the Moon, do you?") I wasn't aware of the specific connection. If it is relevant, though, that's fine. Titanium Dragon (talk) 20:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Zero point energy is real - it does produce a measurable force - as demonstrated in the Casimir effect. The problem is that people with just enough science education to be dangerous are seemingly incapable of distinguishing the difference between a force and energy. I'm convinced that this is at the heart of the problem. These people tend to imagine that net energy can be extracted from things like magnets and gyroscopes - which explains why such things figure so highly in the more bizarre free energy schemes.
It does seem somehow 'right' that you can do that. When you hold a refrigerator magnet close to your fridge, it wants to jump out of your hand and stick to the fridge - it seems almost 'alive' - full of energy. No matter how many times you release it and let it jump across to the fringe, the magnet never "runs down". This seems (to the inadequately trained) to be a source of limitless energy.
Just put yourself into the mindset of someone who makes the error of conflating force with energy: The force that science can actually demonstrate' with the Casimir effect (technically the Casimir-Polder force) must to be a source of limitless energy. Your frustration if you cannot make that mental leap from force to energy correctly is absolutely guaranteed! I can imagine that it must be incredibly frustrating that scientists made this amazing discovery of quantum weirdness. They've done experiments that demonstrate the existance of the Casimir-Polder force - yet they absolutely refuse to research into how to "harness" it to produce limitless guilt-free power. Those bastards! They must have ulterior motives.
Couple this difficulty with the wishful-thinking aspect of not having to screw up their lives with annoying things like energy conservation - and the 'head-in-the-sand' hope that this global warming thing will somehow just go away.
It is only through education that we can help these people...but their distrust of scientists is now so great that they are largely beyond help. The last free energy nut I tried to help would patiently explain that when he holds out his hand at arms length and places a heavy book upon it, he very soon becomes tired because he's expending energy to counteract the force of gravitational attraction upon the book - so (he claims) force and energy must be the same thing. Sadly, explaining the biology of muscle contration is beyond my knowledge - and when I offer a counter-example by asking how that table can support an identical book without consuming any energy, he resorts to contorted descriptions of the rigidity of the table somehow connecting the book to the planet and thereby nullifying the force of gravity. This is all abject nonsense - but once someone is convinced - it's REALLY tough to change their minds.
So I can somewhat understand where these people's frustrations comes from. That doesn't make them right of course! SteveBaker (talk) 02:53, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Of course, Zero Point Energy is also a handy, impressive, buzzword because people can google it and get lots of genuine hits, just like they can google the words with which someone like Tom Bearden peppers his exhortations. It's just that when you put them together, they're meaningless. This sort of semi-meaningful techno-babble dates back at least to the Keely Motor, in the late 19th century, which Keely claimed drew energy from the "luminiferous ether" (actually not a totally crazy claim at the time). In fact, it drew energy from a hidden pneumatic system.Prebys (talk) 19:38, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] SECRECY ORDER

SECRECY ORDER

(TITLE 35, UNITED STATES CODE (1952), SECTIONS 181-188)

NOTICE: TO THE APPLICANT ABOVE NAMED, HIS HEIRS, AND ANY AND ALL OF HIS ASSIGNEES, ATTORNEYS AND AGENTS, HEREINAFTER DESIGNATED PRINCIPALS:

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT YOUR APPLICATION AS ABOVE IDENTIFIED HAS BEEN FOUND TO CONTAIN SUBJECT MATTER, THE UNAUTHORIZED DISCLOSURE OF WHICH MIGHT BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE NATIONAL SECURITY, AND YOU ARE ORDERED IN NOWISE TO PUBLISH OR DISCLOSE THE INVENTION OR ANY MATERIAL INFORMATION WITH RESPECT THERETO, INCLUDING HITHERTO UNPUBLISHED DETAILS OF THE SUBJECT MATTER OF SAID APPLICATION, IN ANY WAY TO ANY PERSON NOT COGNIZANT OF THE INVENTION PRIOR TO THE DATE OF THE ORDER, INCLUDING ANY EMPLOYEE OF THE PRINCIPALS, BUT TO KEEP THE SAME SECRET EXCEPT BY WRITTEN CONSENT FIRST OBTAINED OF THE COMMISSIONER OF PATENTS, UNDER THE PENALTIES OF 35 U.S.C. (1952) 182, 186.

ANY OTHER APPLICATION ALREADY FILED OR HEREAFTER FILED WHICH CONTAINS ANY SIGNIFICANT PART OF THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE ABOVE IDENTIFIED APPLICATION FALLS WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THIS ORDER. IF SUCH OTHER APPLICATION DOES NOT STAND UNDER A SECURITY ORDER, IT AND THE COMMON SUBJECT MATTER SHOULD BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE SECURITY GROUP, LICENSING AND REVIEW, PATENT OFFICE.

IF, PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF THE SECRECY ORDER, ANY SIGNIFICANT PART OF THE SUBJECT MATTER HAS BEEN REVEALED TO ANY PERSON, THE PRINCIPALS SHALL PROMPTLY INFORM SUCH PERSON OF THE SECRECY ORDER AND THE PENALTIES FOR IMPROPER DISCLOSURE. HOWEVER, IF SUCH PART OF THE SUBJECT MATTER WAS DISCLOSED TO ANY PERSON IN A FOREIGN COUNTRY OR FOREIGN NATIONAL IN THE U.S., THE PRINCIPALS SHALL NOT INFORM SUCH PERSON OF THE SECRECY ORDER, BUT INSTEAD SHALL PROMPTLY FURNISH TO THE COMMISSIONER OF PATENTS THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION TO THE EXTENT NOT ALREADY FURNISHED: DATE OF DISCLOSURE; NAME AND ADDRESS OF THE DISCLOSEE; IDENTIFICATION OF SUCH PART; AND ANY AUTHORIZATION BY A U.S. GOVERNMENT AGENCY TO EXPORT SUCH PART. IF THE SUBJECT MATTER IS INCLUDED IN ANY FOREIGN PATENT APPLICATION, OR PATENT, THIS SHOULD BE IDENTIFIED. THE PRINCIPALS SHALL COMPLY WITH ANY RELATED INSTRUCTIONS OF THE COMMISSIONER.

THIS ORDER SHOULD NOT BE CONSTRUED IN ANY WAY TO MEAN THAT THE GOVERNMENT HAS ADOPTED OR CONTEMPLATES ADOPTION OF THE ALLEGED INVENTION DISCLOSED IN THIS APPLICATION; NOR IS IT ANY INDICATION OF THE VALUE OF SUCH INVENTION. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Go-here.nl (talk • contribs) 19:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

This look like vandalism. Please explain its relevance, or it will be deleted.Prebys (talk) 20:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Well it's true that the US government is entitled to slap a secrecy order on any patent application...or on any other invention for that matter...if it is deemed critical to national security. However, that wouldn't apply to 'free energy' systems - only to things like weapons. Also, it's only going to work if they do it BEFORE the patent is approved. Once something is patented, it's out in the open for anyone to see and it's a bit late to be thinking about suppressing it! SteveBaker (talk) 23:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
There's no need to AGF on the part of the US government, which seems to be required for SteveBaker's second sentence to be relevant. I suppose it's theoretically possible that other inventions which violate the laws of physics were suppressed under a secrecy order. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
It's not a matter of "good faith". There are laws. The long capitalised quote above is indeed part of US law - and it allows the US government to deny patent claims for items that would be a threat to national security. So if (say) you invented a way to blow up an airliner in an manner undetectable to airport security - then your patent on such a device would almost certainly be denied and you'd get this oh-so-friendly letter...probably delivered by a bunch of serious-looking guys in black suits who talk into their sleeves a lot. But as it clearly states, it relates to matters of national security - and would not apply in the case of a free-energy patent. You might claim (as many have) that the US government would somehow suppress a free energy patent by some illegal means - but it wouldn't be legal and it wouldn't be covered by this document. Hence this document is irrelevant to this article. SteveBaker (talk) 14:26, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Are you aware of anyone who claims their free energy patent application was suppressed under the auspices of national security? AFAIK, the the vast majority of energy suppression accusations involve things for which designs and/or patents exist and are freely available on the web (e.g. Stanley Meyer), which leads one question exactly what form this "suppression" supposedly takes.Prebys (talk) 16:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, the conspiracy theorists have argued (even in this article) that such an invention would disrupt the US economy, which could arguably be considered a threat to national security.
And, if an invention were suppressed under a patent secrecy order, they couldn't talk about it, could they? (Well, I can't find anything in that phrasing which would prohibit the people named from stating that they are under a patent secrecy order, but there may be additional regulations under the PATRIOT ACT which would cover it.)
— Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I never understood how free energy would be a threat to national security for a country that is a net importer of energy. Sure - if the US was a net oil exporter, I could see good reasoning behind suppressing a cheap energy source. But the US imports the stuff at huge expense and (some would argue) fights major wars in order to preserve it's ability to do that. On that basis, free energy would be supported - not suppressed. Notice, for example, all of the government money that's being pushed into windmills and ethanol production. Of course this article MIGHT be about free energy suppression in countries that are net energy exporters - but I don't see that coming through. The conspiracy nuts appear to be almost entirely American. SteveBaker (talk) 21:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, logic is the first casualty of this war. On the one hand, there are claims that these mysterious organizations have killed people to suppress this technology, while on the other hand, they claim that the same people invoke national security secresy acts (i.e. that they operate within the rule of law). Add to that that most of the designs remain freely available after the supposed suppression has taken place, and it's very difficult and frustrating to determine exactly what is being claimed.Prebys (talk) 04:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
So we've got a hypothetical situation where the government could invoke the secrecy act to deny a patent application which might exist for something which might or might not work - even though, to my knowledge, no one has ever made this claim? Sounds a little weak for inclusion in the article. I suggest we drop the thread, since the OP has declined to defend it anyway.Prebys (talk) 18:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
The OP claims to be a "multidimensional spirit being from the Pleiades star cluster in the constellation of Taurus." (see User:Go-here.nl) so there is no telling when he/she/it will be back in our neighbourhood to explain the posting. SteveBaker (talk) 21:52, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Good point. Maybe free energy is being suppressed over there. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Could Go-here.nl please stop deleting the above comments. There is no policy against original research on talk pages, and only very limited circumstances in which material on talk pages may be deleted. If you object to the comments then please add text explaining why. LeContexte (talk) 05:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


I guess the order could have a link in the article but that was not my point

So we've got a hypothetical situation where the government could invoke the secrecy act to deny a patent application which might exist for something which might or might not work

I consider this to be a great improvement over the previous paradigm where the consensus was me being some crank as well as all other inventors? (laughs) The could and might part is a great victory for the sanity of the discussion.

I read all devices submitted for a patent are screened by 6 different military agencies, if any of them considers your invention beneficial for military use you will get the thank you note above. The inventors has to stop inventing, then has to work for free informing everyone who knows about his invention about the secrecy order or face the consequences, supply A list of friends in other countries with name and address. Investments are zeroed out without any compensation that I know of.

If the invention was disclosed all around the world you get situations like that of Pantone and Meyer (see above).Go-here.nl (talk) 17:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, actually, in theory, the government is supposed to compensate you for the invention if they actually use it. Obviously, if I knew if that happened in fact, I would be violating the secrecy order by commenting. Still, there are no claims made or referred to in reliable sources that this may have actually occurred, so it doesn't belong in the article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:59, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
When you say "I read", it's good manners to say where, or everyone will assume you're just making stuff up as you go along. As for the statement about the military suppressing anything they find "beneficial", that's just silly. Computers, bulldozers, and suntan lotion are all very beneficial to the military, and those haven't been suppressed. As for Pantone and Meyer, you're making my case for me. All of their designs are available to the public. They simply don't work, and the "inventors" were justly convicted of fraud. The system worked. As I said, arguments based entirely on hypothetical situations are not up to Wikipedia standards.Prebys (talk) 19:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
There are certainly well-documented cases of this happening. Sometime in the 1950's, Hughes tried to patent a scheme for spinning a satellite around two axes in order to stabilise it in orbit (yes, they patented it before any satellites had ever been launched) - the government stepped in and took it away from them on grounds of national security (think spinning ICBM's) and the court case went on for about 40 years - costing Hughes a small fortune in license fees. But I VERY much doubt that there are six departments of the US government looking at every single patent. The US patent office is totally overrun with patents - they spend just a few minutes on each one on the average. If there were six other organizations of similar size and manpower doing that same job, the government would have shut all but one of them down a long time ago! It's much more likely that a part of the job of the patent office is to screen for possible security issues and to pass on whatever they find to the relevent authority. SteveBaker (talk) 23:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't doubt it occurs, I was merely challenging the OP's insinuation that the law was applied capriciously to anything the military thought was useful (or in this case, to devices that don't work anyway). But we're really digressing. The point is, unless someone can produce a source where this is claimed even hypothetically outside of musings on blogs and talk pages, it doesn't belong in the article.Prebys (talk) 17:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes - I agree. SteveBaker (talk) 00:58, 7 June 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Cold fusion...does it belong here?

It is with interest that I note that we now have a section on cold fusion.

Cold fusion (if it worked) wouldn't technically be free energy - it would be fusion power - which consumes fuel and produces less-energetic waste much like any other non-free energy source. Arguably, that means that it should not be included in the article. It's also arguable that the technology (such as it is) has not been suppressed since all of the papers that were ever published on the topic are still freely available. What has been (arguably) suppressed is the ability of dissenting scientists to continue beating a dead horse.

IMHO, it's close enough to 'free-energy' and close enough to 'suppressed' to perhaps make it worthy of inclusion. But there is enough doubt in my mind that I feel we should debate it a little.

Cold fusion is unusual in this 'genre' in that it was initially believed to be scientifically plausible - whereas most 'free energy' claims are obviously false to anyone with a solid scientific background. But because the mainstay of the original claim was the detection of free neutrons (a sure sign that something 'special' was going on), and the original claimants were reputable scientists, the experimental results were initially believed by many. However, once the experiment was repeated and the very few free neutrons accounted for by other means, then this unlikely process was shown to be inoperable (at least to the degree necessary to convince most scientists). But there have been some serious reports of dissenting scientists having their views on cold fusion suppressed - and although some reports of this having happened have been discounted - I think there is a case to be argued that scientific freedom was impinged upon.

It would be nice for the balance of the article to have at least ONE example where the actual suppression of a claim could be somewhat substantiated. (So long as we are careful to find references to support the suppression claim - and wrap the thing with caveats about it not being 'free' energy).

SteveBaker (talk) 13:51, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


[edit] References

Please leave this section at the bottom of the talk page. If you see something below it, please move it.

  1. ^ John J. Berger, Charging Ahead; The Business of Renewable Energy and What It Means for America, 1997. [ed., specific attention should be directed toward “Pretty Polly”, Pages 110 - 121] (cf., Page 39, [...] Reagan and Bush administrations were unfriendly to renewable energy; Page 118, The Reagan administration's assault on renewable energy had begun shortly after [...] 1981. The [U.S. Government's] repudiation of solar energy not only discouraged oil companies and others from pursuing photovoltaics [...])
  2. ^ http://inventors.about.com/od/filipinoscientists/p/Daniel_Dingel.htm
  3. ^ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVhXrvCCILw
  4. ^ http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/comments/papparticle2.html
  5. ^ Nikola Tesla, Tesla harnesses cosmic energy. Philadelphia Public Ledger, November 2, 1933. (cited in: Margaret Cheney, et. al., Tesla, Master of Lightning. Page 142.)
  6. ^ http://pesn.com/2007/11/17/9500458_UFO_Secrecy_and_Clean_Energy_Tech/
  7. ^ http://www.webpan.com/dsinclair/ufo.html
  8. ^ http://www.disclosureproject.org/PhenomenaMagazineSGInterviewSept102004.htm
  9. ^ http://www-personal.umich.edu/~reginald/ufo_prop.html