Free Energy,Anti-Gravity,Tesla,Carr & Searl.

[CuriosityKiller]

It seems to me that the problem of a clean,free abundant energy supply was solved by Nikola Tesla. He also invented the first Anti-Gravity vehicle.

 

This has also since been done by John.R.R.Searl. They have both been supressed by the powers with alterior motives, namely "The rout of all evil", money! I personaly think that the only way to beat the oil cartels and the energy cartels who are working with unlimited amounts of power and money to keep this information out of the public domain is by getting the word out at a grass rout level and working form a place where they have no controll.

 

Places like the pub, the work place and the internet and all the other forms of conversing where they can't come in and buy, lets say the magazine, to stop the flow of free press and information etc. Once the ball is rolling and people are talking about this and realising that they have been manipuliated and kept in, what is basicaly an open prison, what we call every day life they will then start to get very peed off about it and start to demand to know why we the public have been denied the latest in technological advances.

 

Advances that can solve the energy crisis, the third world crisis, aids,cancer and many many more problems that we have today! What I propose is to try to start a leaflett which will tell people basically what's been going on and who to research, what to research etc. This should be handed out to people every week in shopping centers, on the street, at schools, through doors etc etc over and over and over untill people start to look for them selves and not just rely on the everyday news which we are fed every day, the bulls in other words!

 

Maybe then we can get the support to maybe beat the gangster culture we have within the comercial AND political world. What do you guys think? Is this a good idea or is it flawed? Thanks guys I hope this relavent for this sort of forum, I apologise in advance if not.

[MODERATION NOTE: This post was edited for style (added paragraph breaks) and otherwise unchanged]

Edited March 26, 2009 by mooeypoo

[mooeypoo]

Before you can lecture to anyone about the dangers of anything or about some hidden global conspiracy theory to hide true advancements from the public you are in dire need to prove such conspiracy exists.

 

Have you any evidence to offer?

[padren]

I am a big fan of the guy but I am not familiar with any work of Tesla's that would provide anti-gravity or free energy. I assume by "free energy" you mean "otherwise untapped bountiful potential energy" since free energy does not exist, but I really don't know of anything he could have conceivably worked on that could even vaguely stumble on such a thing.

 

He didn't even believe you could harness atomic energy - thought it was a pipe dream.

 

He was only familiar with chemical/mechanical energy, and hadn't considered that energy/matter were convertible and involved a huge amount of energy in a small mass... This gives me the impression he wasn't exactly even open to the idea of tapping energy sources with a higher than chemical output, let alone researching them. He worked in energy distribution and mechanical to electrical energy production, and a few interesting and creative ways to use that energy once generated.

 

 

So why would I be interested in handing out fliers for something I find improbable? Why would anyone take up your idea, when there are tons of people calling to hand out fliers for a whole other manner of crises:

 

Equally substantiated claims of:

 

* Aliens have warned us we are going to run out of air in 40 years

* The government is hiding advances on the Mayan Calendar algs that show the world will end in 2012.

* Jews have conspired and "took all our money" and created the economic crash.

* ...add many religions and a handful of cults that espouse a critical need to act now so Things Will Be Really Good because if we don't do as they say really fast then Things Will Get Really Bad.

 

Honestly your request hits a wall of white noise in the background din of a million voices and gets drowned out pretty quickly. That's why substantiating claims with clear empirical evidence and falsifiable theories are critical to the sharing of ideas.

[Sisyphus]

I find it fascinating that Tesla, an electrical engineer and inventor, single-handedly cured AIDS, a biological disorder that would not appear until decades after his death, and which the full weight of modern medicine has been unable to conquer, but his cure was successfully suppressed by an oil company. Really, really fascinating.

[JohnB]

Where does the OP mention AIDS?

[Sisyphus]

Where does the OP mention AIDS?

 

"Advances that can solve the energy crisis, the third world crisis, aids,cancer and many many more problems that we have today!"

[Royston]

Errr, I'm not sure if the OP even deserves to be labelled as a parody, and am I the only one who's completely baffled as to why gang culture was slipped in at the end...'in the commercial and political world'...what !?!

[YT2095]

I can be sure, but my Gut says this will probably be a Hit`n`Run type debate.

[JohnB]

@ Sisyphus.

 

Thanks, I had to read the blasted thing twice more before I saw it.

Before you can lecture to anyone about the dangers of anything or about some hidden global conspiracy theory to hide true advancements from the public you are in dire need to prove such conspiracy exists.

I think the problem is that it is actually impossible for a "conspiracy" of some kind not to exist.

 

Directors and Boards of companies have a legal obligation to maximise the returns to investors and can be charged for not doing so. Under these conditions it becomes imperative for any company threatened by a new technology to either gain control of it or minimise or destroy it.

 

For example, if by some feat of genius someone actually made a car motor that ran on water, then oil company execs have a legal obligation to control or destroy the idea as it would adversely effect company earings, whether or not the idea was good for the world.

 

It's the way the system is set up.

[tvp45]

@ Sisyphus.

 

Thanks, I had to read the blasted thing twice more before I saw it.

 

I think the problem is that it is actually impossible for a "conspiracy" of some kind not to exist.

 

Directors and Boards of companies have a legal obligation to maximise the returns to investors and can be charged for not doing so. Under these conditions it becomes imperative for any company threatened by a new technology to either gain control of it or minimise or destroy it.

 

For example, if by some feat of genius someone actually made a car motor that ran on water, then oil company execs have a legal obligation to control or destroy the idea as it would adversely effect company earings, whether or not the idea was good for the world.

 

It's the way the system is set up.

 

In general, that's not possible. Almost nothing is ever invented in isolation except the nutty things like a special torch for removing nose hair. Science, particularly advanced science, is collaborative, and there is a sort of "time" for certain things to occur. Think of Tesla, for example. While he was busy developing three phase motors in East Pittsburgh, the Europeans needed the same type of devices. So, people like Ferrari invented things much like Tesla at about the same time. So, the "secret" almost always gets out.

 

Now, of course, if there were patents, then corporations can control the use of those for at least seventeen years. But, patents are public documents. People know of their existence. If somebody like Warren Buffet knew that Exxon-Mobil was sitting on a patent for running cars on gas, he would do a hostile takeover, split the oil company from the patent and sell both separately, becoming perhaps the first gazillionaire.

 

Privately held corporations could, of course, be immune to a takeover. But, is there any evidence that anything like this has ever occured? Read John Baez's list of clues to detect a nutty conspiracy theory.

[padren]

Now, of course, if there were patents, then corporations can control the use of those for at least seventeen years. But, patents are public documents. People know of their existence. If somebody like Warren Buffet knew that Exxon-Mobil was sitting on a patent for running cars on gas, he would do a hostile takeover, split the oil company from the patent and sell both separately, becoming perhaps the first gazillionaire.

 

It's come up in discussion before, but isn't a company like Chevron sitting on that battery patent that would make electric cars far more practical? It came up a while back, on a thread about intellectual property and patent law but I don't recall which one.

 

It was considered a fact within the thread though I haven't researched it myself, does anyone remember that?

[JohnB]

In general, that's not possible. Almost nothing is ever invented in isolation except the nutty things like a special torch for removing nose hair.

One word Starlite.

 

To quote from an email dated 3 February 2003 (link at the bottom of the page) written by Pamela Pohling-Brown a writer for "International Defense Review" :

I fear, however, that it may have now somehow been classified and indeed possibly suppressed if it renders some current project/research area null

 

A paint that is resistant to the heat of a close nuclear blast, no wonder the inventor is afraid someone might pinch or classify it. IIRC the blurb at the time said that it was not only effective against heat, but almost all forms of EM radiation.

 

There is an interesting article quoted around the net, (but I can't find the original) that says in part;

One other interesting consequence is that the large corporations who had rejected his initial approaches in such a knee-jerk fashion, conducted internal inquests to find out what had gone wrong, both with their own research and with their dealings with the outside world.

 

On the face of it, it was perfectly understandable that Ward's claims should be ignored since he was merely an amateur, with no scientific training and no track record in research.

 

ICI's own paints laboratory held an internal audit and what they found puts this claim in an entirely different light. For the audit showed that the most scientifically qualified of its research chemists had contributed to the least number of patents, and the fewer scientific qualifications the staff possessed, the greater the number of patents they had contributed to. In the most striking case of all, the person who had contributed to most ICI's patents had no scientific qualifications at all.

 

It seems that Maurice Ward's greatest strength as a researcher was that he had not been taught how to think.

 

The "Egg Test"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxqFyDugqs4

US TV piece on the stuff

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDJNCIr2-JM&feature=related

[swansont]

ICI's own paints laboratory held an internal audit and what they found puts this claim in an entirely different light. For the audit showed that the most scientifically qualified of its research chemists had contributed to the least number of patents, and the fewer scientific qualifications the staff possessed, the greater the number of patents they had contributed to. In the most striking case of all, the person who had contributed to most ICI's patents had no scientific qualifications at all.

 

It seems that Maurice Ward's greatest strength as a researcher was that he had not been taught how to think.

 

Without knowing more detail, this could mean several things. If the lab had a rule about anyone working on a project being named in the patent, the lab tech whose time is shared between several researchers would contribute to lots of patents. The most qualified researcher could have been given the toughest problems to solve.

 

This conclusion does not necessarily follow from the results of investigation.

 

———

 

Where is the conspiracy in all of this? The wikipedia article says that he demanded 51% of the profits. Was Starlite ever patented? There is no mention of it. How is this an example of someone suppressing anything? Paranoia is not evidence of conspiracy.

 

———

 

Free energy and cars that run on water are not being suppressed by big business, or the government. They are being suppressed by mother nature and the entropy cops, from whom there is no hiding.

[JohnB]

Without knowing more detail, this could mean several things. If the lab had a rule about anyone working on a project being named in the patent, the lab tech whose time is shared between several researchers would contribute to lots of patents. The most qualified researcher could have been given the toughest problems to solve.

 

This conclusion does not necessarily follow from the results of investigation.

Fair enough. You'll note I did say that I couldn't find the original article, by noting that fact publicly I intended for it to be given less weight.

Where is the conspiracy in all of this? The wikipedia article says that he demanded 51% of the profits. Was Starlite ever patented? There is no mention of it. How is this an example of someone suppressing anything? Paranoia is not evidence of conspiracy.

I never said there was one. My bringing up Starlite was in direct response to the quoted statement;

Almost nothing is ever invented in isolation except the nutty things like a special torch for removing nose hair.

Specifically to demonstrate that not only can the backyard inventor still find things that the big labs miss but also after 15 years, they still can't match the original invention.

 

I think the stuff is wild. It has been tested at over 7,500 C by British Weapons labs. We could make a probe to go into the Sun, although how you stop the instruments from frying when they take a reading is another matter.

Free energy and cars that run on water are not being suppressed by big business, or the government. They are being suppressed by mother nature and the entropy cops, from whom there is no hiding.

Agreed. However my comments don't apply to only those types of things. If you made a razor blade that lasted for a year, it would be in the interests of current manufacturers to delay or stop it's production.

 

I meant nothing more than to show that the current economic system is set up (by accident, it just grew that way) to preserve the status quo. And that company directors have a legal obligation to do so. So in that respect, regarding any new invention that threatens capital investment and future income a "conspiracy" becomes inevitable.

 

Like you I think "Free Energy" is not possible, however I can think of two ways offhand where inventions/equipment could be devised that would appear to give out energy with nothing going in. I have no idea how you could actually make them, but their construction (at least for one of them) should be possible. (Without violating any laws, BTW)

 

Because of this, I don't automatically write off such claims without having a bit of a look.

[Sisyphus]

I understand your point, JohnB, and it's something I've thought about before. I'm not sure how much it actually happens, but it's certainly the case that those who make their living solving or mitigating a certain problem have a direct interest in preventing a less labor intensive solution from becoming available, which is to say an interest directly contrary to the consumer.

 

If, for example, I invented a cheaply manufacturable pill that could permanently cure all allergies with a single dose, that would be a huge benefit to humanity as a whole, but it would also put a whole lot of people out work, including the entire allergist profession, and severely hurt the revenues of several major drug companies. So, competition between these companies and these doctors drives them to be the more and more effective at mitigating the problem, without any incentive (and indeed a major disincentive) to actually solve it.

[iNow]

It's come up in discussion before, but isn't a company like Chevron sitting on that battery patent that would make electric cars far more practical? It came up a while back, on a thread about intellectual property and patent law but I don't recall which one.

 

Phi for All has brought this up repeatedly. Do a search for his posts and the word "Chevron." This topic has come up in many threads, but I think the one you are specifically asking about is here:

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?p=390786

[JohnB]

I'm not sure how much it actually happens, but it's certainly the case that those who make their living solving or mitigating a certain problem have a direct interest in preventing a less labor intensive solution from becoming available, which is to say an interest directly contrary to the consumer.

It's the logic always put forward about "suppressed" tech or cures.

 

I don't know how much or even if it actually happens, however I do think it likely that it does. I think that to believe a company will willingly forego millions or billions of dollars is naive.

 

"Suppressed" cures for cancer come up time and again. The arguments usually boil down to:

For: "There is far more money to made "researching" and "treating" cancer than actually curing it, therefore the cure is suppressed."

 

Against: "Any researcher that finds the cure is assured of a Nobel, he wouldn't allow it to be suppressed."

 

The missing counter point in the "for" argument is that if billions are involved, (and worldwide it is that much) is simply that the researcher may prefer to have his family alive.

 

People are killed every year for thousands of dollars, how far would an executive go to protect millions in bonuses?

 

Let's face it, Thomas Edison invented "electrocution" and was happy to demonstrate repeatedly on small, cuddly creatures for no other reason than to have his DC power win over Teslas AC system.

 

Is it really so hard to believe that someone would threaten human life for the same reasons? And would you really blame the researcher for caving?

 

Again, I'm not saying that it has happened, but it is by no means an impossible scenario.

 

Edit: Why is it that many people seem quite happy to believe that companies will aid and abet a war (with all it's death and destruction) purely for profit, but baulk at the idea of different companies sacrificing lives for profit in different areas?

Edited March 31, 2009 by JohnB

[Sisyphus]

I actually doubt there's very much "suppression" of technologies going on. I think in most cases it's just a matter of pursuing treatments at the expense of pursuing cures. That doesn't require any active conspiracy, it would just mean that businesses aren't actively seeking to obsolete themselves.

[swansont]

The line of reasoning, though, suggests that a vaccine for polio would not have been pursued, for the same reason, or several other vaccines including one for HPV, which is a cause of cancer.

 

Maybe, just maybe, it's a hard problem.

[Sisyphus]

The line of reasoning, though, suggests that a vaccine for polio would not have been pursued, for the same reason, or several other vaccines including one for HPV, which is a cause of cancer.

 

Maybe, just maybe, it's a hard problem.

 

The idea isn't that that nobody is working on those things or that or that cures would be promptly forthcoming if everyone was, though, just that some sectors are not. And, perhaps, if those sectors are the dominant directors of research in a field, that that explains certain technological trends.

[swansont]

The idea isn't that that nobody is working on those things or that or that cures would be promptly forthcoming if everyone was, though, just that some sectors are not. And, perhaps, if those sectors are the dominant directors of research in a field, that that explains certain technological trends.

 

The problem I see is that lack of results is being offered up (by some) as proof of conspiracy. How do you document lack of (sufficient) effort? "Compound X did not affect the tumor" doesn't tend to get written up.

[Sisyphus]

Well, I don't think there are widespread conspiracies or attempts to suppress anything, even in the form of deliberately "not trying hard enough." I just suspect that the avenues of research pursued, as directed by those using research as a financial investment towards a specific end, is not going to be towards mitigation of problems rather than solutions, simply because it's usually a far better investment, financially speaking. Now, competition in the market is going to drive continual improvement in that mitigation, which is certainly good for the consumer, but still not a permanent solution, if only because any direct economic competitors are going to have the same incentives and disincentives as you do.

 

But again, of course, that's not the entirety of what drives research, as obviously you know as well as anyone.

[Mr Skeptic]

Actually, you can talk about free energy without being criticized, but you must mention Mr Gibbs if you want to be taken seriously.

[mooeypoo]

Actually, you can talk about free energy without being criticized, but you must mention Mr Gibbs if you want to be taken seriously.

Free energy in terms of price or free energy in terms of unlimited source? Because most of the accounts of "free energy" I've heard spoke of the latter, which is against the laws of physics. Nothing is unlimited,and, on top of that, conservation of energy and the laws of thermodynamics mean we can't get more energy than what we put in.

[insane_alien]

Free energy in terms of price or free energy in terms of unlimited source? Because most of the accounts of "free energy" I've heard spoke of the latter, which is against the laws of physics. Nothing is unlimited,and, on top of that, conservation of energy and the laws of thermodynamics mean we can't get more energy than what we put in.

 

free energy as in terms of gibbs free energy. it is part of chemical thermodynamics and compliant with all the laws. it is useful in determining whether a reaction will spontaneously occur or will have to be forced. also in determining the entropy change of the system.

 

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