Free energy help for college paper

[sykavy]

please HELP!

If people on the forum could answer some or all of the questions below, it would be a big help.

I need to do a 5 page paper on a community that I am part of that uses a word most people don't understand. Then I have to do an interview with a person ( or persons) from that community.

I was thinking of the word "free energy"

Some questions to answer for the interview:

What characteristic would you say that people in the free energy community have in common?

Why do you think so few people either have heard about it ?

Why has "legitimate" science seemed to reject it?

How do you see the future, in the next ten years, for the free energy movement?

How is important to the average person?

[adam ant]

What characteristic would you say that people in the free energy community have in common?

none fit into a traditional "consumer" mold

Why do you think so few people either have heard about it ?

because the average person does NOT want to be different. everyone is afraid to be the first to do something "irrational" compaired to the mainstream's ideas of what is acceptable and what is not.

Why has "legitimate" science seemed to reject it?

two reasons
1. no scientist that has spent half a lifetime in study, and countless thousands of dollars in degrees can admit that it was all a fraud. pride overtakes rationality because then they would automatically feel that they wasted their life because of a lie.

2. some KNOW the truth but GREED takes over.

How do you see the future, in the next ten years, for the free energy movement?

i believe we will see a fraction of a moment where "free energy" takes the stage, but this will be quickly overrun, taxed, controlled, and restricted just like the internet is about to become, just like they did with alcohol, just like they did with hemp, just like they did with oil, nuclear energy, income taxes...

How is important to the average person?

this question is missing something.

but i will assume you meant, "how important is free energy to the average person"

IF!! free energy devices can be distributed in a wise way, i believe it could mean a financial boost to the economy. if people are saving $200 - $500 dollars in electric (add on gas/electric conversions) they will be more free to spend. this is common sense. tax revenue will go up(more spending), jobs will become more available, and everyone can breathe again.

[future pather]

What characteristic would you say that people in the free energy community have in common?

A willingness to look "outside the box."

Belief in a better way of doing things

Knowledge of free energy scientists and concepts


Why do you think so few people either have heard about it ?

Politics is a big one.



Why has "legitimate" science seemed to reject it?

Probably politics again. Also they often measure by closed system methods, not accounting for the possibility of open systems. There are other ways their measuring techniques seem to disprove the free energy effects when the truth is they just can't measure them. For example with cold fusion, it was measured by tracking any moving (hope I get this right) particles, but the particles don't actually need to move to produce energy.


How do you see the future, in the next ten years, for the free energy movement?

Gaining more and more attention and noteriety.


How is important to the average person?

Potentially exremely - saving $, petrolium, changing dependence on foreign oil, allowing for faster travel, better technology in general.


XO Jessica

[Shamus]

What characteristic would you say that people in the free energy community have in common?

A desire to go beyond what we've been taught is The Truth, to find out for ourselves if there is any merit to the claims being given.

Why do you think so few people either have heard about it?

The media that most people are connected to are controlled by a small group of people; such people do not wish for such information to be commonly known.

Why has "legitimate" science seemed to reject it?

Most "scientists" these days are nothing more than religious converts who have simply accepted as true whatever they have been taught. Those in a position to teach have their own entrenched reasons for rejecting what used to be science (hypothesize, experiment, verify/falsify). Again, the vast majority of people have been put through public "education" systems which are controlled by a small minority. That many so-called scientists started out in such institutions would explain much.

How do you see the future, in the next ten years, for the free energy movement?

It all depends on whether the suppression of the technology is successful or not. Let's take the optimistic road. If the technology is embraced and let loose then we would see some extraordinary things come to light--things that we've all been told are either too expensive, too impractical or simply impossible. It would also mean that the dominant power structures that are in place now would cease to be as dominant as they are now. The pessimistic road means that it remains underground, the dominant power structures accrete more power to themselves, and we all will suffer greatly for it.

How is important to the average person?

We're on the brink of revolution in technology, assuming it doesn't get suppressed like all the rest. The implications are vast; some of the areas that would be affected are power generation, communication, and travel. For the first time in the history of the world, all of these gifts can be easily and cheaply given to anyone who wishes to have them. But only if the currently installed power structure wishes to allow it. Judging from the past, it would seem that they're not going to.

[amigo]

What characteristic would you say that people in the free energy community have in common?

To look at the part of the bigger picture (no one can really see the entire big picture ) and realize that the needs of the entire planet are dire and that something has to change if we are to take the next step in evolution.
Otherwise, this world will ultimately collapse and revert to some less modern level of civilization, or totally perish at our own hands due to carelessness.

Why do you think so few people either have heard about it ?

Numerous reasons: it's kept suppressed by those who's interests would be endangered by a proliferation of freely available energy. People could be "off the grid" and uncontrollable by the governments or the corporations who thrive on us "depending" on them (we truly do not have to depend on them).

Another factor is that people are not interested, for several reasons:
- many do not have time to engage in extra curricular activities because they are preoccupied with their own survival.
- others do not care because they have everything they need and do not wish things to change (change is hard to accept - always)
- third would like something to change but are unwilling to break their own small bubble and acknowledge there is world outside it, usually waiting for someone to do it first.
- fourth....

Why has "legitimate" science seemed to reject it?

The orthodox science has not rejected the concept. Many scientists are aware of these concepts but do not dare to peep about it because they would lose their grants and sources of funding, positions of statue, livelihood, reputation and prestige in the scientific community, etc.
Others are incapable to consider anything that they have not been taught or that's not in the orthodox literature right now and widely accepted. Their world is based on shallow theories that they regurgitate all the time because someone told them so and they blindly follow it.

How do you see the future, in the next ten years, for the free energy movement?

Nothing drastically will change in the next ten years. Our "Overlords" have a strong grip over this world and they will introduce change gradually and at their pace to allow them a transition from one economy to another, maintaining their control and power. History is the best indicator of how this was done (for example transition to Age of Pices, introduction of Jesus Christ and 12 disciples - basically Sun and the Zodiac, which was also present in previous cults of worship of the Moon, Sun, Saturn in prior Ages...).

If you observe what is going on today and has been for several decades (and will continue on in the future) is the introduction of the New Age movement which will pick up the pace and be the force of change between the Age of Pices and the upcoming Age of Aquarius.

How is important to the average person?

Not really or not at all. As I said above, most people live in their own bubbles, media induced filter inside their reality tunnels controlling what they perceive. Many believe what they read in the newspapers or hear on radio or tv and take it as a fact: "It must be true, the box told me..."
The Facts have been perverted so much by our Overlords that it is becoming quite difficult to discern what's true and what's not.

We will need a Renaissance of the mind for all of us first, a mental awakening and acceptance on many levels that there are other human beings living around us, that we are all equal and one and the same, and that we need to truly take care of each other. After that all the physical changes can happen in a blink of an eye, and I feel they will. But the doors need to open inside first for everything starts within and not without

[Redmeanie]

"Legitimate" ROFLMAO

please HELP!

Why has "legitimate" science seemed to reject it?

And By "Legitimate" You mean the Morons who spend their whole lives and careers memorizing other peoples work out of books, contributing nothing to society other than "Theories" about things that they feel other scientists were wrong about in their Theories". The same "Legitimate" scientists that could have a system right in front of them, actually working, and they would say it doesn't work because the current laws of science say it's impossible. Those "Legitimate" science people who claim they are so much more intelligent than everyone else because they have a piece of paper that says they were smart enough to memorize information from books and pass tests based on that information, and absolutely NO independent thought or ideas of what their "Brilliant" minds could accomplish on their own. I'm just amazed at the "Legitimate" Science people....Book Smart Yes, But Common Sense, Absolutely Nil......I just can't respect anyone who claims to be SO MUCH more intelligent than your average person, But is too stupid to figure out how to change the oil on their own car, or how to change the air filter on their own AC unit in their house.

And as far as the rest, as long as the Oil Companies RUN this country you might as well kiss any free energy ideas good bye....And if you do figure out a good system, build yourself one, post it on a forum like this for others to duplicate for themselves Like Bob Boyce did. That is the only way you will get it out and make a difference. Trying to Patent Things to make money off of it only means that your ideas will probably die with you, Just ask Stan Meyer.Oh wait you can't he was "Mysteriously" poisoned....Hmmmm

[sykavy]

Thanks, all your comments are great. If there is anyone else who wants to post, feel free to post. Thanks for the help!

If we all do our part to get the infomation out there, people will start to accept this new technology or better yet, make it ourselves and show them.

If there were other comments about the Free Energy community, please feel free to comment here. Personal testimony about how you discovered this subject, would be welcome.

anyway thanks again!

[future pather]

If there were other comments about the Free Energy community, please feel free to comment here. Personal testimony about how you discovered this subject, would be welcome.


I found out a lot more info joining certain internet forums (like this one) that weren't only about free energy but contained info about it.

Before that I figured at least some ufos were likely to be advanced human created crafts but didn't really know anything about free energy concepts.

I mean I remember The Discovery Channel had a cool show called "Beyond 2000" and they showed, for example a tube you could run water through to purify it (it was made of something that caused sunlight to be highly concentrated and it purified the water, something like how a magnifying glass and sunlight can make a fire).

And at least since college I have been very pro environmental and done whatever I could to reduce energy consumption.

I think it was Aaron's book "Synthesis of Matter," which I found out about through this forum, that helped me understand more of the details of open systems and other free energy concepts.

Jessica

[Shamus]

And as far as the rest, as long as the Oil Companies RUN this country you might as well kiss any free energy ideas good bye....And if you do figure out a good system, build yourself one, post it on a forum like this for others to duplicate for themselves Like Bob Boyce did. That is the only way you will get it out and make a difference. Trying to Patent Things to make money off of it only means that your ideas will probably die with you, Just ask Stan Meyer.Oh wait you can't he was "Mysteriously" poisoned....Hmmmm

You are so right. And this seems to be a common thread for people doing real science in this area. The equation is simple: Commercialization = death. I think that if these kinds of suppressed inventions are going to see any kind of widespread acceptance, it's going to have to be word-of-mouth and forums like this where people can replicate things for themselves.

As for what led me to the whole free energy community, it was a simple little short film called "It Runs On Water". Now the cavitation heater they showed in the beginning of it is interesting and all, but what really fired my imagination was Stan Meyer and the work he was doing. It literally blew my mind. So in searching the internet for everything I could find out about Stan, I eventually stumbled onto Tom Bearden and John Bedini and the rest is history.

The rabbit hole goes down a long way, and I still haven't seen the end of it yet.

[Aaron]

"free energy"

Hi Sykavy,

A lot of great responses here!

People who have a lot of passion and are sick and tired of being sick and tired of the way things are is really a great motivating factor to get involved.

From some of the people pioneering this field in the present, much of their take on this is that it will be very difficult if not impossible to get "free energy" technologies into commercial production. Some of them really feel that if people want it, they have to learn it and build it themselves grassroots style. Most people aren't equipped with either enough money, tools or knowhow to even understand most of it so that isn't very practical so only a few will really build working models and benefit in any practical way.

I think that if there is a collaboration grassroots style where different people with different skills come together...technology, money, organization, etc... that at least everyone in that group will have it available to them and I think that is a "realistic" start.

Technically, there is no free energy. You have to invest something on the input to get it going. They aren't over 100% efficient (total out to total in) but they ARE Over 1.0 COP (coefficient of performance) that means the output EXCEEDS what you have to put into the system not counting what came in from the environment in the form of light, wind, water, gravity, etc...

There are a few distinctions that need to be understood so that we can at least all explain it to ourselves. Overunity is not an accurate word to describe anything because that is like saying more than everything. Zero point energy has nothing to do with over 1.0 cop systems but more to do with energy available from something at absolute zero showing there is still some movement so that is what zero point energy really is.

One reason much of this isn't as accepted is because as long as many people in this field are describing things in an uneducated way, the dogmatic status quo preserving in-the-box priests of the religion of science will say it is bogus and they would be absolutely right.

Personally, it doesn't matter to me what they think but for any wide acceptance by the masses, it will have to be "approved" or "recognized" by those that the masses are under the control of in order for them to believe it to begin with.

Tom Bearden for example explains a lot of this in their own language with their own textbooks and their own foundations of science that they teach but still don't understand...and he has a hard time convincing many of them even with that. It doesn't have much to do with what is or isn't. What is "right" or "wrong" or any of that. It has more to do with their preservation of ego because if they were to allow themselves to accept the truth to all of this, it would invalidate the whole premise of all their teachings that the world is flat.

IF, however, people in this field or people who really believe themselves to be involved with legitimate over 1.0 systems want to make progress, it would benefit them to be educated as to the correct knowledge of open/closed systems, know the difference between back emf and inductive spikes, know the difference between COP and efficiency and so on. Most of them do not and as long as they do not, they are not going to get much agreement by any mainstream "thinkers." Not only that, they will find themselves arguing with others in this same field because they aren't talking the same language. At least if the developers in this field unified their language and were on the same page with that, at least they could move as one cohesive unit, which would be way more powerful than a thousand different viewpoints going in a million different directions.

Of all the people in this field that I know of who are working on legitimate over 1.0 systems...I would say I could count all of them on 1 hand that actually know the distinctions between the basic concepts mentioned above. Because no matter what the actual underlying mechanisms of the aether/potential, etc.. is, they will ALL have COP/efficiency,open/closed, etc.. .apply to them no matter what the theory of the underlying source of the potential is.

John Bedini has his ideas of the radiant gas, Peter Lindemann has his..although they may have different specific viewpoints of exactly what the aether gas really is, they may be quite similar...but even if they are very, very different, both of them know the difference between efficiency and cop and so on and no matter what their specific viewpoints are on the aether, etc... the concepts of cop vs efficiency, open vs closed, etc... are probably necessary to understand.

Why? Because if certain parameters are known that are required to even have an over 1.0 COP system, then you can go about following certain parameters in a million different ways and get over 1.0 COP without having to follow a certain schematic or plan.

If you know that the system has to involve open system concepts in order to get over 1.0 COP, then you can automatically forget every concept that involves closing the loop and you reduced all your possibilities by maybe half. If you know that X is a variable that needs to be incorporated and is always involved also with over 1.0 COP systems, then you know that anything that doesn't involve the concept of X can be ruled out and you have revealed a certain window you can work in. If y, z, a, b, c, etc... same thing.

I see a lot of claims in the water fuel cell experimenting world where the claim is over 100% efficient. They may be gaining more work from the gas output or generating more gas than 'supposed' to but they are getting more than they are putting in not even knowing that there is other input from the "environment." They do not know that there is an overall loss in the system and it is under 100% EFFICIENT, but output is more than they had to put in so it is over 1.0 COP...total out divided by total in.

I have seen some experimenters who are reasonable and they understand the necessity to have intelligent explanations for what they are doing. Then there are others who outright refuse to use any common sense at all. Then there is everything in the middle.

Some want to argue with the mainstream "experts" that they are getting over 100% efficient and the mainstream "experts" say that is impossible and the mainstream "experts" would be absolutely correct. Not only do these experimenters need to be able to understand it themselves, but they need to be able to explain it to others in order to be standing on strong ground.

Just a few thoughts and by the way, I believe my book, which was called Synthesis of Matter and is now called The Quantum Key is the book to give this language to the public in a very common sense way in my opinion. It will be available very soon through ESM's shopping cart.

[sykavy]

Thanks everyone for the help!
Also it is great to hear about your book AAron. I'll see if I can get a copy how would I order it?

[sykavy]

You are so right. And this seems to be a common thread for people doing real science in this area. The equation is simple: Commercialization = death. I think that if these kinds of suppressed inventions are going to see any kind of widespread acceptance, it's going to have to be word-of-mouth and forums like this where people can replicate things for themselves.

As for what led me to the whole free energy community, it was a simple little short film called "It Runs On Water". Now the cavitation heater they showed in the beginning of it is interesting and all, but what really fired my imagination was Stan Meyer and the work he was doing. It literally blew my mind. So in searching the internet for everything I could find out about Stan, I eventually stumbled onto Tom Bearden and John Bedini and the rest is history.

The rabbit hole goes down a long way, and I still haven't seen the end of it yet.

Interesting "It Runs on Water" also started me into the Free Energy movement. Videos are powerful