I've been reading a few controversial topics lately regarding this.

Apparently,

1) Very cheap/free generation of energy is readily available for consumer use but the technology is being suppressed by the oil industry giants to protect their interest.

2) As early as Tesla's time, his idea of a free wireless power transmitter to the entire globe was already being suppressed by one J.P Morgan, because he can't charge consumers for using Tesla's ideas.

3) This might be a bit wrong as I'm too lazy to Google for the source, but it goes something like this. According to James Maxwell's original 20 equations, energy exists even inside a vacuum and it is possible to 'harvest' that energy for usage.

4) Morgan was a businessman and not a scientist, but he had lots of advisors on science. He ordered them to reduce Maxwell's equations to the 4 'Maxwell equations' well-known today. The part about energy in a vacuum had been removed and till this day, not discussed in conventional textbooks.

5) There are plenty of other stories such as government cover-ups, murders/threats to inventors who announced their inventions to the public, reluctance of the scientific community to accept new ideas and one interesting case of the US company GM motors who destroyed their own EV1 electric cars which were highly efficient.


I don't know how much of this is true but I do find it very interesting. It seems that many (including me last time) would just blindly dismiss all this as crackpot theories, "violation of 1st law of thermodynamics", "you can't create energy from nothing" and won't even discuss about this.

I'm still holding a skeptical stance on this, but those websites do sound quite convincing. If this is true, who knows what else the rich and powerful are covering up. If the knowledge and technology exists, EVERYONE has the right to know. Science must never be suppressed for business interests.

As for my sources, they are mostly the top few hits on Google, searching terms like 'free energy'.

Welcome any opinions.

This post has been edited by xlcs: Feb 19 2011, 05:38 PM

put here for reference

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=expl...1NDRlNzA2&hl=en


all the things you said is nothing new, but it has to be that way because our economy system is a powerful platform for everyone to have chance conquer each other(you need to pay to use 'my' thing, this and that), therefore its very nature is against free energy

*note for my personal reference, some people like happy4ever are denying we still aren't playing the 'monopoly game'

This post has been edited by rahizan: Feb 19 2011, 10:41 PM

Part a, maybe. Wind, river water.

Part b, no. No evidence of that so far.

JP Morgan has been dead 97 years. If that idea was so good, someone would have already done it by now. Who's continuing to suppress it?

There's good reason to say it wouldn't work. Whatever power being transmitted will dissipate with distance. And some people today worry about the power being transmitted by handphones. Wait, till they hear about the power being transmitted by this thing ...

Zero-point energy? True.

Nuclear fusion is true too. Fusion bombs are 60 years old.

But proving that it exist, and actually harvesting the energy are completely different things.

False.

My physics class is too long in the past. I can only remember hazy details. Not whether zero-point energy is mentioned, or even what Maxwell's equations were.

If you google zero-point energy, there are science fiction stories based on it. This is typical of stuff that may be possible, but nobody knows how to actually do it in practice.

I've seen the Who Killed the Electric Car movie. What GM did did seem weird.



I don't believe it *can* be. Just look at wikileaks. Or before that, the DVD decryption key. If you found something useful, and wants to release it to the world. Just put it on the web. Once the info is out, nobody can stuff it back in the bottle.

There are many discoveries that are kept away from being implemented because such a revolution would change the balance of power in the world. People who have power do not want that of course.


the REAL INFRASTRUCTURE actually has been built before, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jxWsc7y1olg

http://www.integrityresearchinstitute.org/...teslaconfer.htm

This post has been edited by rahizan: Feb 20 2011, 06:48 PM

Note: Do we have an electrical engineer here? I'm not one, and much of the theory is beyond me.

OK. I've read up on the Wardenclyffe Tower. Long article, but interesting.

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

Sorry, my mistake. I read "wireless power transmitter to the entire globe", and immediately assumed power is being transmitted via radio waves. Something like inductance charging mats, but operating at worldwide distance. Apparently Wardenclyffe Tower works in a different way.

If power was simply transmitted as radio waves, that would of course be subject to the inverse square law. Power would decrease too precipitously with distance, to operate worldwide. At 10x the distance, power is only 1/100 as strong. At 1000x the distance, power is only one millionth as strong.

The wikipedia article says Wardenclyffe Tower had two purpose. (1) wireless signal transmission (2) wireless power transmission.

(1) wireless radio signalling: we already have this. Just turn on your shortwave radio, and you can hear transmission from the other side of the earth. This is not been suppressed.

(2) wireless power transmission.

JP Morgan was not some rich stranger who suddenly comes up to quash Tesla's inventions because it would affect his profits. JP Morgan was one of Tesla's financial backers. People who gave him money, and understandably expecting a return on his investments. There was apparently a rumour that this particular Tesla invention would give rise to free and unmetered electricity, and that was why JP Morgan killed it.

The way I read the story, it seems different. JP Morgan did not seem to do anything other than withhold further funding. Tesla would obviously be frustrated. Here he is, on the cusp of a breakthrough that would greatly benefit everyone, but he is being cut off from the money. Not only was JP Morgan refusing to give any more money, he was telling his rich friends, and Tesla couldn't secure any additional funding from anyone else.

The problem was, the thing was getting very expensive, and Tesla did not have a plan on how he was going to pay back his investors. If it was going to be a "public good", he should have gotten funding from donors, or govt grants. Investors expect profit from their investments.

Would it have eventually worked? I don't know. Tesla was a genius. But genius sometimes makes mistakes as well. There's always the possibility that it wouldn't have worked, even it Tesla had unlimited funds.

I'm not sure where the "free energy" part comes from. Yes, the ionosphere is charged. But it would be wrong for me to say, "If only we could tap it, we would have nearly unlimited free energy". How would you tap it? Not that you couldn't . But how do you do it without cost.

I could just as easily say that there is oil burried under ground. If we could tap it, we could have lots of free energy. The oil is free. Digging it up and separating it out costs money. There is geothermal, wind, hydro, solar, wave. All these are free. Tapping them is the problem. In a way, all sources of energy can be said to be "free". Adding the word "free" is misleading. People think free means you don't have to pay anything. No running cost. No investment cost.

The word 'free' is quite open to interpretation. But before we go into a pointless debate on the word 'free', I do think it is acceptable for 'free' to include very cheap/low costs relative to current methods such as oil. It doesn't have to been literally, free.

As for the story on J.P. Morgan, here's one interesting one that I've read

Source: http://www.cheniere.org/correspondence/050207.htm

I don't know how credible the claims are on that site, but it does make some good points. As for the story of Maxwell's equations, its on the same page.

The first two paragraphs sounds reasonable. But the third paragraph sounds crazy.

That link, it sounds like nonsense to me. The article is written in the tone you'd find on crazy conspiracy theory sites.

I'll just take a few paragraphs. To refute them all will take too long.

People who hated quaternions? Huh? Quaternions *were* displaced by vector algebra, but not due to a conspiracy lead by JP Morgan. It's because vector algebra is notationally cleaner and easier to understand. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quaternion . Kind of like how the numbers we use today displaced roman numerals.

Ignoring the slander (the article does not say anything to justify it), if they were to publish their own version of the equation, how does that prevent anyone else using Maxwell's original equations?

The article seems to take the view that Maxwell's original equations predicts it possible to get this free energy. But by "symmetrizing" the equations, the equations can be changed to predict this "free energy" isn't possible. And creating this new symmetrized equation, somehow prevents other people from creating devices that harvest this "free energy".

What's to stop you from using Maxwell's old equations?

We do not live in the Matrix. Creating equations do not change the reality we live in. Equations is supposed to describe reality. And no equation describes reality perfectly. That is why they are replaced and new ones made. The new ones matches reality more accurately.

Don't know if Maxwell's equations have been modified. But if they had, *that* would be the reason. Not because a few rich guys wants to prevent people getting free energy.

However, I am open to the idea that Chevron (the oil company) may have suppressed the development of electric vehicles by refusing to license the NiMH patents they controlled (they bought those patents).

How could the 51% owner keep *ALL* profits from the 49% owner. No doubt he could have stopped all profits, but that will hurt himself 51% and Tesla 49%. This isn't what the paragraph say though. It seems to say that the majority shareholder could simply vote to pay dividends to himself, and none at all to the minority shareholders.

As I said before, you put your plans on the www. Once it's out there, it cannot be suppressed. If you believe there's a conspiracy to silence you, you send it to wikileaks and/or other sites like that.

AFAIK, none of those overunity energy systems have failed because the inventors have been framed on trumped up criminal charges, or assassinated. They have simply failed to perform to expectation ("underunity"). The last major one was Steorn's Orbo. Nobody died at Steorn.

Tesla lived a century ago. There is a lot *we* today know that he did not in 1912. He was certainly a genius. But the thing he worked on then, we would consider ancient and simple today. For instance, he fought with Marconi in court for the wireless patents. Much progress have taken place since his time.

It's entirely possible that he thought of something nobody did. Not even in the 100 years since then. (Fermat's last theorem comes immediately to mind). But I think it more likely that he was mistaken. That if he *had* unlimited funds, his research would not have led to free energy. Maybe something interesting. But not free energy. He lived until 1943. If he had some special insight, in the 30 years since he was forced out of Wardenclyffe, he might have shared it. It was not like JP Morgan had him locked up all that time.