30 votes

Tesla Free Energy suppressed by govt and corporations in energy business

I watched the first 41 minutes of this film so far:

http://www.thrivemovement.com/the_movie

I knew Eugene Mallove personally as he used to have a store in Framingham where he sold telescopes etc.

It is no wonder that aside from those of us who know of Ron Paul I still encounter people who have never heard of him at all thanks to the MSM blackout.

I do fear for his life given the threat to the profits of those who are reaping in the interest on the production of Federal Reserve Notes by the Fed which Ron Paul wants to abolish after a thorough audit.



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Earth to Carol Lynn: That

Earth to Carol Lynn: That Honda car is powered by hydrogen not water. They say that the car is being introduced in Southern California in places where there are available hydrogen fueling stations. Yup, you have to fill up your car at a hydrogen fueling station. It doesn't run on water. Likewise, the BMW can be run on gas or hydrogen, and if you want to run it on hydrogen you need a hydrogen fueling station.

So where does the hydrogen for the fueling station come from? Well, no doubt it is made by splitting water into hydrogen and oxygen. The energy required to do this comes from burning coal or natural gas, or from nuclear power, or from hydro power, whatever the grid uses. Ultimately those hydrogen cars are powered by a conventional power plant.

The biggest beneficiaries of a switch to hydrogen cars will be the coal miners and the natural gas drillers.

Very educational Bob! Quick question..

Natural gas can be converted from slurry (pig or cow crap) by natural anerobic processes right? I say this only because America has facilities that can produce natural gas without having to go to drilling.

I would add that if we have

I would add that if we have methane it is much more efficient to use that methane directly to power an engine than to use the methane to generate electricity and then use the electricity to generate hydrogen, then use the hydrogen to power an engine.

Sure, some methane can be

Sure, some methane can be obtained from decomposing organic matter, whether cow crap or landfills. That can make a modest contribution to our energy requirements, and I'm all for it. (We may as well get *something* useful out of landfills.) But I'd be surprised if those sources ever constitute more than 20% of our natural gas supplies.

Thanks Bob! Your awesome.

As you can tell, when it comes to energy, I make the n00bs look good.

I don't believe that the

I don't believe that the system which Carol Lynn is speaking of, eliminated the air intake of a conventional combustion engine; therefore it is not a closed system.

Thank you. Have you seen this?

Stan Meyer water powered dune buggy
http://www.waterfuelcell.org/WFCprojects/Video/NewsReport.wmv

Stanley Meyer video; unlike ordinary electrolysis
http://waterpoweredcar.com/equinox3StanleyMeyer.WMV

An old saying goes. "Those who say something can't be done - should stop bothering those who are doing it! The sky is not the limit!

You never give up, do you?

You never give up, do you? The arguments I use have nothing to do with whether "ordinary electrolysis" is used. Replace fuel cell A with any device that splits water into hydrogen and oxygen gas. Replace fuel cell B with any device that combines hydrogen and oxygen to make water. The argument still applies. Device A will always use at least as much energy as device B produces. This is just conservation of energy.

I have noticed that when those free energy advocates are in full bull dada mode they always claim they're using zero point energy, as in the audio clips you link to. Jeesh, if you have that publish the results in a real physics journal and collect your Nobel Prize.

The only thing the air intake

The only thing the air intake provides of any value is oxygen. Splitting water into hydrogen and oxygen obviously produces oxygen as well. If you choose to bleed off the oxygen into the the atmosphere that comes from splitting the water, and instead use oxygen from the air when burning the hydrogen, it makes no difference whatsoever in the energy calculations. Oxygen is oxygen.

You are suggesting that there

You are suggesting that there is no unbound hydrogen in the air? We all know this is not true.

If there was enough hydrogen

If there was enough hydrogen to make any difference you wouldn't need any water at all. Remember that the water is no net contributor to power in our hypothetical water powered car. Every joule of energy obtained by burning hydrogen that came from the water is needed to extract that hydrogen from the water in the first place. If in fact the engine works anyway because of burning hydrogen from the air then just leave the water part out (it's a net sink of energy) and burn the hydrogen in the air. Now do you really think this is feasible -- a car powered by burning ordinary air? (Not burning some fuel in the atmosphere, but burning the atmosphere itself.) If this could work, wouldn't we be in danger of a giant atmospheric conflagration every time lightening strikes?

Hydrogen composes less than

... one part per million of our atmosphere. Wiping your counter with anti-bacterial cleanser leaves behind more surviving bacteria than there is free hydrogen in the air. There is almost 381,000 times more oxygen in the air by volume than free hydrogen.

The amount of METHANE in the air is more than three times the amount of hydrogen by volume. Why aren't we inventing machines to collect and burn that?

It might as well be none at all.

You do know that the 0.6 ppmv

You do know that the 0.6 ppmv which you are ascribing to is an average of 4 studies done, one in 1956, the second in 1957, the third in 1961, and the fourth in 1965; they have been used and propagated since that time. I'm sure the atmospheric composition hasn't changed since then.

You are incorrect.

Are you seriously telling me that a bunch of scientists devised ways to measure that amount of hydrogen in the air way back in the 1950s and 1960s and then once they had a value they shelved the technology and never thought to use it again?

All you need to measure the amount of hydrogen in the air is to use a mass spectrometer. Get a sample of air, excite it by passing a charge through it and record the wavelengths of emitted radiation. This is how the Galileo spacecraft measured the amount of hydrogen inside Jupiter. This is how we determined the hydrogen composition of the Sun, without even getting near it. This is how we determine the hydrogen (and hundreds of other uniquely radiating elements/compounds) content of distant stars and exoplanet atmospheres.

That same technology is turned on our own atmosphere on a daily basis by students and scientists of physics world wide. The value we have today is accurate for today.

I'm sure the concentration of

I'm sure the concentration of hydrogen has not changed in any significant way. Even if there was ten times as much hydrogen now as there was then (where would it come from?) it would still have no measurable effect on your water powered car. It's sad to see a person grasping at straws in this way.

Bob, I never said that the

Bob, I never said that the water powered car would work; did I? There you go again, making assumptions. Haven't you learned by now, not to make assumptions? First you assume that the system which people are talking about is a 'closed system,' which they never said, then you assume that I wouldn't catch your false statement that there is 0 unbound hydrogen in the air. Then you assume that I am defending the water powered car. Just by talking with me you made three faulty assumptions; I certainly hope you don't do that at work. Also, I wonder how many other faulty assumptions you have made throughout this thread; or for that matter, throughout life.

If that isn't bad enough, you get help by some individual -which is probably just a secondary account of yours- which quotes numbers that are 47 years old; not necessarily your fault or the other individual's fault, because textbooks have been using those very same numbers for about 46 years.

Climate-gate should be evidence enough that those who pay for research get the answers which they have paid for. Science and scientists are not and should not be above reproach; if you think so, then you really just traded one church for another.

Furthermore, if you think that textbooks aren't manipulated by those who pay to have them manufactured, then you should pick-up a history textbook and see what it says was the cause for the Civil War; because to debunk that, one only needs to look at Lincoln's Inaugural Address.

Pathetic. You made the false

Pathetic. You made the false statement that I had made the false statement that there is 0 hydrogen gas in the air. I merely said that the only relevant gas in the intake was oxygen, which is true. Hydrogen at 0.6 ppm is not relevant. If you weren't defending the notion of a water powered car then just what were you doing? You seem over proud of your pointless game of "Gotcha!"

I never said the water powered car was a closed system. I brought in the example of the fuel cell perpetual motion machine to make it clear to even the dim witted that this is not a scheme likely to work. I had assumed that people would realize that a system that is open only because it releases some oxygen and then intakes an equal amount of oxygen is equivalent to a closed system that simply retains all its oxygen. But I guess some people aren't as bright as I had assumed.

I also find it pathetic that you assume that some other person with a clue about basic chemistry must be a secondary account of my own. Do you assume that I'm the only advocate of Ron Paul who didn't flunk basic science?

You seem to think that 50 years ago scientists deliberately understated the true level of hydrogen in the atmosphere. (Otherwise, why drag in Climate-gate?) What possible nefarious purpose did they have? Could they all have made a mistake? Sure. Maybe there's less hydrogen than they measured (you assume it must be more). It is highly unlikely that several independent studies would all be off by an order of magnitude. In fact, the actual amount of hydrogen could be 1000 times higher than those studies showed and it *still* wouldn't be relevant to the discussion. Do you know of any more recent studies that show a significantly different value for the amount of hydrogen in the atmosphere? If so, please show us them. If not, I'm not surprised, since most scientists have something better to do than remeasure some number about which there isn't any real controversy anyway.

We have real problems of meeting the energy needs of 7 billion people. But it is sad to see people waste their time and resources on perpetual motion machines that can't possibly work. If all that effort was put to finding a practical form of fusion, or an economically viable form of artificial photosynthesis, who knows -- we might make some progress.

If you really knew that the

If you really knew that the system which Carol Lynn was talking about wasn't a fully 'closed system' then why would you use the following as an example to demonstrate the uselessness of what she was advocating?

If this really worked you could get your house off the grid in a month. Just buy two fuel cells.
Fuel cell A is run in reverse. It uses electrical power to split water into hydrogen and oxygen.
Fuel cell B is run forward. It combines the hydrogen and oxygen from fuel cell A into water, generating power.
Feed the water from fuel cell B back into fuel cell A. Power fuel cell A with the electricity generated by fuel cell B.
You now have a fully closed system. It is your belief that fuel cell B generates more power than fuel cell A uses, leading you with excess power with which to run your house. You have a perpetual motion machine.

You state:

I brought in the example of the fuel cell perpetual motion machine to make it clear to even the dim witted that this is not a scheme likely to work.

but how does your reasoning work if your example is a closed system, but the system which you are arguing against is not a closed system? Dim witted? Faulty reasoning shows itself through a discontinuity between what you think you are proving and what you actually prove.
Also, you state that:

The only thing the air intake provides of any value is oxygen.

However, one must ask why you would say that in the same paragraph in which you state:

If you choose to bleed off the oxygen into the the atmosphere that comes from splitting the water, and instead use oxygen from the air when burning the hydrogen, it makes no difference whatsoever in the energy calculations. Oxygen is oxygen.

If you don't get it; the second quote negates the first. Now, one would suspect that any level of hydrogen higher than a zero net gain would be of significance; especially if you think the only value the air intake provides is a zero net gain due to oxygen.

By stating:

I also find it pathetic that you assume that some other person with a clue about basic chemistry must be a secondary account of my own. Do you assume that I'm the only advocate of Ron Paul who didn't flunk basic science?

Really; the other person has a clue about chemistry? That must be why they used 47 year old numbers; right?

You state:

most scientists have something better to do than remeasure some number about which there isn't any real controversy anyway.

My question is: wouldn't they have measured the hydrogen content in the air when they were measuring everything else in the air for the last 30+ years? You actually believe that those scientist just didn't measure the hydrogen content?
Also, again you assume that I am saying something that I didn't say. When did I say that I believed that there was more hydrogen in the air 47 years ago then the numbers from that time stated there was?

The reason I brought up climate-gate should have been obvious, but apparently for you it wasn't. I was just stating that scientists do lie, if they are paid to; because if the reason they are receiving funding is for climate change or anything else, the results of their “experiments” will reveal what those funding them want to hear. Look how false scientific experimentation, i.e. Climate-gate, data changed all of the textbooks; and even since it was proven false, the textbooks have yet to change back. This is one way in which just blindly accepting what is found in textbooks can actually delay scientific and technological advancement.

If people waste their time on this stuff what does it really matter to you anyway? You claim nobody here is an actual scientist so they wouldn't be doing anything to find solutions to what you think is a problem. So, there is no net loss for the people here do be doing any of this stuff; is there?

What I find funny and sad about what you say is that even in 2001 the scientific community said that Cold Fusion was pseudoscience, but now the community is acting like they always supported the idea. All the way up into the 1950's going into space was impossible, until it wasn't. In the late 1800's and early 1900's flight itself was pseudoscience, until the community was proved wrong. Sustained nuclear reaction was pseudoscience until the community of experts were proved wrong. TV, Radio, harnessing Niagara Falls and thousands of other ideas were all pseudoscience until the “expert” scientific community was proved wrong time and again. Hell, even the internet was pseudoscience, but here we are. The establishment scientific community has fought change every step of the way; yet time and again they have been proven to actually hamper scientific progress rather than encourage it.

47 year old numbers

Hydrogen content of Earth's atmosphere:

520 ppb (parts per billion) with a trend of +1.2 ± 0.8 ppb/yr, measured from 1994 to 1998 - Simmonds et al. (2000)

531 ppb with a trend of -2.3 ± 0.1 ppb/yr, measured from 1991 to 1997 - Novelli et al. (1999)

Watch out -- those are 12

Watch out -- those are 12 year old numbers! The hydrogen content of the atmosphere might have increased 10,000 times since then! Besides, the oil companies paid Simmonds and Novelli to fake their results.

I'm debating a man who is not

I'm debating a man who is not only scientifically illiterate, but fails basic reading comprehension, e.g., "If you don't get it; the second quote negates the first." Um, no it doesn't. Carol described an open system that is obviously equivalent to a closed system (to wit, replace the oxygen in the air intake with oxygen from the water splitter). You seem to have some strange incapacity to understand this.

There is nothing wrong with using 47 year old numbers if those numbers are still accurate enough for current purposes. You have some strange obsession that there might be much more hydrogen in the atmosphere than anybody else imagines -- thousands as times as much, in fact. Weird. I assure you that you are the only person on the planet with this odd hypothesis. You have never explained why scientists 47 years ago would lie about how much hydrogen is in the atmosphere.

You make a list of things that you claim were called pseudoscience that in fact never were, like space flight, the internet, nuclear power, and television. Some people might have said that these things were never likely to be practical or couldn't be achieved with then known technology, but nobody ever claimed that those things violated conservation of energy or some other fundamental law of physics.

You and Carol are no scientists, that is true. I don't expect any breakthroughs from you two.

I certainly hope

I certainly hope that you are joking, because if you are not that would just be sad.

You stated that:

The only thing the air intake provides of any value is oxygen.

By stating that the oxygen is the only thing of value by way of the air intake, you are stating that the oxygen has value per the system. However, a sentence later you state:

If you choose to bleed off the oxygen into the the atmosphere that comes from splitting the water, and instead use oxygen from the air when burning the hydrogen, it makes no difference whatsoever in the energy calculations. Oxygen is oxygen.

This second quote is stating that the oxygen entering the system by way of the air intake has zero effect on the system. So, how can something which has zero net effect on a system be the only thing of value added to the system? If something is of value to a system then it must have some effect on the system other than nothing.

Since you continue to try to make the system a zero-sum system, you make it easy to disprove your hypothesis; because all I have to do is to show a gain to the system and it would therefore no longer be a zero-sum system and you would therefore be proven incorrect. This is where the hydrogen comes in. No matter how little hydrogen there is in the air, it(hydrogen) along with half the same amount of oxygen will add energy to the system and therefore prove that it is not a zero-sum system; therefore proving your hypothesis incorrect.

One can only speculate that you keep bringing the argument back to oxygen, because if one only looks at the oxygen content of the air as being the only thing added to the system by way of the air intake, then your zero-sum hypotheses would be correct; however, oxygen isn't the only element or compound added to the system by way of the air intake, and therefore your hypotheses is incorrect.

Also, you seem to want to limit air to be composed of oxygen only; air is made of many different elements and molecular compounds -most of which react with oxygen or hydrogen or both under the right conditions. With oxygen and hydrogen from the electrolysis acting as a catalyst to ensure there is enough oxygen and hydrogen within the cylinder to initiate combustion, the combustion would create a chain reaction creating other compounds while increasing the energy output of the system. Because, as the hydrogen and oxygen fuse together it will create higher temperatures and an increase in pressure to create other molecules with the elements which are also found within the air.

I never said that the 47 year old numbers were incorrect back then; so you should really stop making a fool out of yourself by insisting that I said that. I had never stated that there was more or much more hydrogen in the atmosphere back then or even now -you just can't read.
The point I was making, which was lost on you, was how could one trust that the composition of air in regards to the amount of hydrogen found within it, is the same 47 years after the fact. What do you think would happen if someone tried to counter the falsified numbers of climate change by using CO2 numbers from 47 years ago? Our atmosphere is a dynamic system, therefore, there isn't the same amount of any element or compound found in the atmosphere today as there was last year; let alone 47 years ago.

This is where you really had me laughing:

You make a list of things that you claim were called pseudoscience that in fact never were, like space flight, the internet, nuclear power, and television. Some people might have said that these things were never likely to be practical or couldn't be achieved with then known technology, but nobody ever claimed that those things violated conservation of energy or some other fundamental law of physics.

While they may have not been called pseudoscience directly -since that is a relatively new term- but to state that those who advocated such things weren't identified and ridiculed as trying to perform magic is just hysterical.

You have absolutely no idea of what some of those scientists and engineers had to put-up with because centralized authority which determines what is and what is not science – kind of like the church in years past- i.e The National Academy of Science -created by an act signed by president Abraham Lincoln- and compounding the problem was the National Science Foundation created in 1950, The Royal Society and others throughout the world ridiculed these people for their ideas. You should really look into the history some; it is quite saddening how these organizations treated some of the brightest people in science at the time.

They almost cost Louis de Broglie his Ph.D, because of his doctoral thesis which was above their heads; after a few years and other research corroborating his thesis, he was finally able to get his Ph.D. It is quite interesting because his doctoral thesis won him the Nobel prize in 1929. If de Broglie would have been any farther away from 'mainstream' science at the time, he would have never got his Ph.D.

Here is just a short list off of the top of my head of people these types of organizations have ridiculed: Boltzmann, Faraday -to some extent, Hamilton, Maxwell, Tesla, Brown, Schauberger, Heim, Beirden, de Broglie -for five years, Turing, Godel and the list could go on and on.

You should really checkout Godel's Incompleteness Theorem.

You are getting so absurd

You are getting so absurd you've ceased to be entertaining.

Take a few minutes to look at the video

about the Japanese invention; water fueled car. This invention was scheduled for mass production, when it suddenly disappeared from view, with some lame excuse. Bought out by big oil or threatened out of existence.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tBm8ogwnpG0&feature=relmfu

I will buy one for you

Present to me an honest-to-goodness car which requires no other fuel but water and I will buy one for you. Heck, I will buy you two of them.

What you are talking about is a chemical impossibility. Water is essentially hydrogen ash; it's ALREADY been burned completely. Saying you can run a car on water is like saying you can take the completely burned ashes from your charcoal BBQ and BBQ with them over and over again.

In case you don't yet understand: Every story of a solely water-powered vehicle, without exception, has turned out to be a hoax. Frankly I don't know how people like you can continue to be so gullible, blaming some oil company conspiracy as the reason we hear about these things time and time again, yet they never reach production.

Think about this: Are the oil companies ALSO bribing college and university science students not to make water powered engines as their class projects? If they're legit, so easy to make, and would solve all automobile pollution, you'd think THOUSANDS of those liberal tree-hugging kids would latch on to the idea and build one just to SPITE big oil. Surprise surprise, they don't, because science students actually know a thing or two about science.

So yeah, about buying you that water-powered car? My offer still stands.

NOT claiming the car.

Just thought you might find this interesting. :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&v=lSiShiu9Sgs...

Sorry, you still don't qualify for a car

Just listen to the guy, even he doesn't know how his own engine works. There is some kind of plasma, or radiation, or something, I don't know. And he's been running it since 1983 and he never tried to improve upon it, or make a bigger one? And not only does it supposedly run on water (which is chemically impossible) more oxygen is emitted by the machine than pulled in from the air? Where is the energy coming from?

He had to "prime" the thing with a petroleum fuel, but he didn't leave it running for very long! In this case, that's all the machine was running on, not water.

In any case, this guy was arrested and he plead guilty to securities fraud. Why? Because he's delusional and a con-man. Don't use the fact that he was sent to prison as proof that the oil companies are suppressing his "discovery".

In fact, detailed diagrams of the GEET engine are available online for anyone to view and build. So nothing is being suppressed. Why don't you download the schematics and build it yourself?

Might download his plans.

But I am no mechanic and life is too busy to add that to my to-do list. I want to find one that works that someone else has built. Still looking.

Did you see this? Maybe the future is a hover craft using magnetic energy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UrN99RELqwo&feature=youtu.be

Hmmm

Lots of witnesses to that offer, GreyWyvern ;)