Go Back   David Icke's Official Forums > Main Forums > Hidden Science & Advanced Technology

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 05-06-2011, 05:48 PM   #21
martg
Inactive
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 8,041
Likes: 7 (5 Posts)
Default

true that energy cannot be created or destroyed (at least as far as we know), but that doesn't necessarily mean that free energy is impossible, the amount of energy in the zero point field is almost infinite.

There are people who claim to have created over-unity devices with more than 100% efficiency, they claim it works by extracting energy from the zero point field.

so in a way I agree, it's not entirely free, but it is almost infinite.

Last edited by martg; 05-06-2011 at 05:56 PM.
martg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-06-2011, 06:14 PM   #22
phildee3
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: wherever I am
Posts: 12,622
Likes: 3 (3 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by reverend v View Post
I dream of escaping this madness too. I wish I knew where to go.
Why?
The life of an intergalactic gypsy-traveller quite appeals to me.
__________________
~ ~
There's no such thing as a mistake, an accident or a coincidence.
phildee3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-06-2011, 07:34 PM   #23
pi3141
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,547
Likes: 100 (79 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hadabusa View Post
has beardens MEG created itself in a vacuum?
Yeah you get it.


Quote:
Originally Posted by phildee3 View Post
The MEG is not energy. It is only the instrument through which energy is channeled from the aether.
Like a magnet. But like a magnet it cost you something to get it or make it. The energy that comes through the magnet is not created for free. It is surrounds the magnet in the environment. The magnet just collects the available energy.

But once you got the magnet, the magnetic energy you get out of it doesn't cost you anything.

Quote:
Originally Posted by martg View Post
so in a way I agree, it's not entirely free, but it is almost infinite.
Thats it in a nutshell.
pi3141 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-06-2011, 08:14 PM   #24
phildee3
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: wherever I am
Posts: 12,622
Likes: 3 (3 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pi3141 View Post

Like a magnet. But like a magnet it cost you something to get it or make it. The energy that comes through the magnet is not created for free. It is surrounds the magnet in the environment. The magnet just collects the available energy.
No, you don't get it.
"Free" energy doesn't mean free of our labour - it means free of cost to the environment.
__________________
~ ~
There's no such thing as a mistake, an accident or a coincidence.
phildee3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-06-2011, 08:25 PM   #25
pi3141
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,547
Likes: 100 (79 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by phildee3 View Post
No, you don't get it.
"Free" energy doesn't mean free of our labour - it means free of cost to the environment.
Yes.

I do understand that.

But for many people, thats not what they think when they hear the term 'free energy'

It could also be said, in terms of a magnet, that the environment furnishes the energy. Thus there is a cost to the environment, it gives something up, something is channeled through.

To say the environment doesn't furnish energy is to claim that, if the device doesn't create energy and the environment doesn't give any, then the energy is magically created from nowhere and here we go with the conservation of energy lecture.

Thats if you misinterpret 'cost to the environment' to mean something other than the way you meant it.

Its just a play on words.

Last edited by pi3141; 05-06-2011 at 08:34 PM.
pi3141 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-06-2011, 11:54 PM   #26
pi3141
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,547
Likes: 100 (79 Posts)
Default

Let me recap.

Some 'free' energy examples.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pi3141 View Post
Arthur C Clarke postulated that if you suspended a length of wire in the air, say a mile long high up in the atmosphere, the action of the earths magnetic field cutting through the wire at right angles would induce an emf in the wire that would be sufficient to power New York or something.
This is not energy from the vacuum. This is energy from the surrounding environment. The earths magnetic field.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pi3141 View Post
T Henry Moray believed his equipment tuned into the Van Allen belts and received energy from them.
This is not energy from the vacuum, this is energy that exists several miles out in space It may well use the vacuum as a medium, so it travels through it, but it is not 'from' it.


The Meg is energy 'from' the vacum. At least thats my understanding of the Meg from what Bearden seems to be saying in the video -

Quote-

Quote:
Part 1 - Energy From The Vacuum DVD Series

'when you localise the B field and expose around it that usually hidden, uncurled A potential thats called called the Aharanov Bohm effect'
1:09:50

'Regauged spacetime which is a change in that vacuum'
1:11:11
pi3141 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-06-2011, 12:49 AM   #27
pi3141
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,547
Likes: 100 (79 Posts)
Default

Here's another way to explain it.

If I set up a wind turbine I am tapping energy from the wind.

If I set up a wave generator on the sea I am tapping energy from the wind.

Waves on the sea are created by the effects of wind on the sea. (as well as gravitational effects)

Therefore a wave generator is tapping the energy from the wind, through the waves the wind generates by the effects it has on the sea.

Two different systems colecting the same energy through different source.

One is directly from the source, the other is through the effect the source has on a medium.

The fluctuations in the medium, sea waves, are similar to the fluctuations in the vacuum that Bearden talks about.

Energy collected from the fluctuations is 'from' the vacuum.

Energy collected from extraneous source is 'through' the vacuum.

Both have external forces.

Neither are 'free' - they are transduced from something else or received directly. But they do not 'cost' the user for the extra input.

(imo)
pi3141 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-06-2011, 04:12 AM   #28
phildee3
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: wherever I am
Posts: 12,622
Likes: 3 (3 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pi3141 View Post
Yes.

I do understand that.

But for many people, thats not what they think when they hear the term 'free energy'

It could also be said, in terms of a magnet, that the environment furnishes the energy. Thus there is a cost to the environment, it gives something up, something is channeled through.

To say the environment doesn't furnish energy is to claim that, if the device doesn't create energy and the environment doesn't give any, then the energy is magically created from nowhere and here we go with the conservation of energy lecture.

Thats if you misinterpret 'cost to the environment' to mean something other than the way you meant it.

Its just a play on words.
No it's not.
The energy comes from outside/beyond the environment - from an invisible, immeasurable, infinite source.
You've got a point about the magnet but if it's an electro-magnet, powered by excess energy from an over-unity device, then there is no cost to the environment.
__________________
~ ~
There's no such thing as a mistake, an accident or a coincidence.
phildee3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-06-2011, 09:27 AM   #29
pi3141
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,547
Likes: 100 (79 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by phildee3 View Post
No it's not.
The energy comes from outside/beyond the environment - from an invisible, immeasurable, infinite source.
Ok, thats your opinion.

My opinion is that there are multiple sources to tap -

Tesla, I believe was trying to tap the Schumann resonannces/cavity in the upper atmosphere

Arthur C Clarke postulated tapping the Earths Magnetic field

Morray believed he was tapping the Van Allen belts

Bearden and Bedini's are tapping the vauum with their Meg


Hence I believe there are multiple sources to tap.
pi3141 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2011, 12:19 PM   #30
phildee3
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: wherever I am
Posts: 12,622
Likes: 3 (3 Posts)
Default

Is this a blueprint for an overunity drive?

http://www.cropcircleconnector.com/2...tone2011a.html
__________________
~ ~
There's no such thing as a mistake, an accident or a coincidence.
phildee3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2011, 11:53 PM   #31
mr_i_disagree
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 442
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

this kinda got blown out the other night,
patent it or tell how its done, dont keep it a secret!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/series/drkarl
mr_i_disagree is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-06-2011, 09:46 PM   #32
pi3141
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,547
Likes: 100 (79 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by phildee3 View Post
Is this a blueprint for an overunity drive?

http://www.cropcircleconnector.com/2...tone2011a.html
Doesn't ring any bells for me. Very 'Ying and Yang' though - a symbol I feel is related to Physics and Free Energy (for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction)
pi3141 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-06-2011, 09:47 PM   #33
pi3141
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,547
Likes: 100 (79 Posts)
Default

Thanks for the link. It was very interesting.

I’m not sure what you mean by ‘blown out’ - if you mean its been discredited I would have to disagree.

I’ve highlighted a few points from the show -

Quote:
16:26 Converting water to H and O

23:19 The second law of thermodynamics is not an intrinsic law of the universe but rather one based on observed behaviour. So it might be that one day you get something that beats the 2nd law of thermodynamics but we've never seen it.

33:45 Stan Meyers is a con

42:45 Zero Point Energy - Everything you read is lies. Hendrik B. G. Casimir (Philips Research), who the invented CD and Audio Casette, discovered ZPE. We know its real but we don't know how to tap it as of the 9th of June 2011.
So, he is saying ZPE is real but thus far we don’t know how to tap it and that the 2nd law of Thermodynamics is not actually completely written in stone and impossible to find violations for – its just that we haven’t seen it violated or broken.

Its interesting if thats how 'mainstream' science views free energy.

Converting water to H and O, I won’t go into here – that’s another thread.
pi3141 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-06-2011, 11:28 PM   #34
pi3141
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,547
Likes: 100 (79 Posts)
Default

Quote:
How his radiant energy receiver worked

From the electric Potential that exists between the elevated plate (plus) and the ground (minus), energy builds up in the capacitor, and, after
"a suitable time interval," the accumulated energy will "manifest itself in a powerful discharge" that can do work. The capacitor, says Tesla, should be "of considerable electrostatic capacity," and its dielectric made of "the best quality mica, for it has to withstand potentials that could rupture a weaker dielectric."

Tesla gives various options for the switching device. One is a rotary switch that resembles a Tesla circuit controller, another is an electrostatic device consisting of two very light, membranous conductors suspended in a vacuum. These sense the energy build-up in the capacitor, one charging positive, the other negative, and, at a certain charge level, are attracted, touch, and thus fire the capacitor. Tesla also mentions another switching device consisting of a minute air gap or weak dielectric film that breaks down suddenly when a certain potential is reached.

Tesla received two patents for this radiant energy device; U.S. Patent No. 685,957 - Apparatus for the Utilization of Radiant Energy and U.S. Patent No. 685,958 - Method of Utilizing Radiant Energy. Both these patents were filed on March 21, 1901 and granted on November 5, 1901. In these patents he explains:

"The sun, as well as other sources of radiant energy throw off minute particles of matter positively electrified, which, impinging upon the upper plate, communicate continuously an electrical charge to the same. The opposite terminal of the condenser being connected to ground, which may be considered as a vast reservoir of negative electricity, a feeble current flows continuously into the condenser and inasmuch as the particles are ...charged to a very high potential, this charging of the condenser may continue, as I have actually observed, almost indefinitely, even to the point of rupturing the dielectric."

Link - http://www.nuenergy.org/alt/tesla_energy.htm
This statement is further confirmation for me and the idea's on this thread.

A lightbulb connected to a the positive and negative terminals of a battery is a 'closed' system ('closed' in this sense being my explanation of this idea). The back E.M.F form the battery when the bulb is switched on will be equal an opposite in Volatge to the input voltage. In other words, you will get a back E.M.F. volatge equal to the input. But little current or amps. (there's not much negative energy in a battery) To answer/understand this you have to consider what a battery is - a dipole or a charge storage device or combination of both.

However a lightbulb connected to the positive terminal of a battery and the negative terminal of the lightbulb connected to the Earth through a ground rod, like a technical Earth, will be an 'open' system ('open' in this sense being my explanation of this idea) able to 'pull in' negative energy from the Earth and thus 'potentially' will not only have a back E.M.F voltage equal and opposite to the input voltage, but also Negative charge or 'amps' from the ground.
pi3141 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2011, 11:41 PM   #35
pi3141
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,547
Likes: 100 (79 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Feynman Physics Lectures Vol2 Ch 09 Electricity in the Atmosphere

Origins of the atmospheric currents

'We must talk about the source of the large negative currents which must be flowing from the 'top' to the surface of the earth to keep charging it up negatively. Where are the batteries that do this? The battery is shown in Fig.9-6. It is the thunderstorm and its lightning. It turns out the bolts of lightning do not 'discharge' the potential we have been talking about (as you might frst guess). Lightning storms carry negative charges to the earth. When a lightning bolt strikes, ten-to-one it brings down negative charges to the earth in large amounts. It is the thunderstorms throughout the world that are charging the earth with an average of 1800 amperes, which is then being discharged through regions of fair weather'


According to Feynman, lightning strikes generated from the positive portion of the atmosphere, carries Negative charge to ground, charging the earth with negative energy. The negative charge comes from outside the Ionsphere - space.

This makes the (Positive?) lightning bolt a conduit for Negative energy from the vacuum of space.

Do (Positive?) noise spikes produced by noisy switching circuits, like the systems demonstrated by Bedini, carry Negative energy from the noise floor (or ground) into the circuit. Are the noise spikes a conduit for Negative energy from the noise floor - the vacuum of space or the Negatively charged Earth if the circuit has a true ground.

Is it the same effect?

It seems to be an explanation that fits the phenomena as described by Bedini and includes a principle observed in nature. Bedini talks about Negative energy noise spikes, different results between night and day phases of the moon, machines work better with a true ground etc. Tesla talked about the Earth as a resevoir of Negative energy, Feynman is giving us the explanation. If we have a circuit connected to ground then why shouldn't some Negative energy from the Earth enter the circuit through the ground connection when conditions are right?
pi3141 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-2011, 10:59 AM   #36
magicyellowcat
Inactive
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 6
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Smile

This Thread has good stuff.

Im interested in the H2O converting into H and O. I heard that water has like 26 or 27 times the energy from weight than gas, when it comes gaining the energy from igniting it.


Taking energy from igniting gas(water 26X more per lb) by using a engine is amazing feat of ingenuity. How is that related to free energy? It seems like cheap(water), or expensive(gas) energy. Is blowing up water more environmentally friendly than gas though?

The Green propaganda movement sure does suck nowdays.



I know this is off topic, but their is a bunch of smart people posting stuff here and i got to ask. What do you all think of Anti-gravity? I got no idea what to make of it. How is Anti-gravity related to free energy?

I agree that energy does not get consumed but flowed threw a median,conduit,channel,spacetime/timespace,vacuum, or whatever suites your fancy.

Jets use a bunch of fuel that costs a lot of money. Anti-gravity looks like free-energy to me. I got no clue as to weather anti-grav is totaly real and easy to put into practice/application( i.e less high-tech than my slow-ass computer that im using to type this stuff) or that it is total bull^#*@????

Thanks for any future posts. OP is great!!
magicyellowcat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-08-2011, 01:55 PM   #37
caper
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: England
Posts: 506
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Free energy isn't real? I think not.

That's just what they'd like you to believe.

http://depalma.pair.com/
__________________
"A single ear of corn in a large field is as strange as a single world in infinite space." - Metrodorus of Chios
caper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-08-2011, 05:26 PM   #38
phildee3
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: wherever I am
Posts: 12,622
Likes: 3 (3 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by magicyellowcat View Post

Im interested in the H2O converting into H and O.
Look up Hydrogen on demand.
Water molecules are seperated into hydrogen and oxygen atoms by electrolysis, of course.
Hydrogen has been shown to contain more energy than the electricity required to produce it (ie over-unity). What is required is a sufficiently energy-efficient device to produce it - which seems to have been done by several experimenters.

Quote:
Originally Posted by magicyellowcat View Post

I know this is off topic, but their is a bunch of smart people posting stuff here and i got to ask. What do you all think of Anti-gravity? I got no idea what to make of it. How is Anti-gravity related to free energy?
It seems that one cannot exist without the other. They are interdependent.
Don't ask me to go into the physics though, but I'm sure the answer is out there if you do some searching.
__________________
~ ~
There's no such thing as a mistake, an accident or a coincidence.

Last edited by phildee3; 30-08-2011 at 05:27 PM.
phildee3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-08-2011, 05:39 PM   #39
bobster
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 1,672
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by phildee3 View Post
"Free" energy is that which has no cost to the environment.
Solar and wind are not quite free because the environment is denied that which we take for ourselves (small as it is, and clean).
Free energy comes from an infinite, non-physical source.

To better understand this, look up "energy from the vacuum" and take some time reading Tom Bearden.


i dont understand what you're saying about solar panels. the environment is denied??

solar panels simply generate energy from the light they take in. they're expensive but a really good investment.
bobster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-08-2011, 06:50 PM   #40
phildee3
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: wherever I am
Posts: 12,622
Likes: 3 (3 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bobster View Post

i dont understand what you're saying about solar panels. the environment is denied??

solar panels simply generate energy from the light they take in.
Yes, they take in light.
Light that would have otherwise gone into the environment.
Thus the environment is denied that portion of light.

What is needed is to make solar panels that reflect all of the light that hits them, back into the environment, and extract the vril (spiritual energy) from which it's power derives.
Vril has no frequency and is therefore not a physical thing, like light. Everything physical is finite. Vril, being infinite, if you take some energy from it, you leave behind the same amount of energy.

∞ - x = ∞

Vril is the source from which the sun directly gets it's energy.

Solar panels have a great future. But, right now, they are only the best of "sustainable" energy technologies. They can become the best of the "free-energy" systems.
__________________
~ ~
There's no such thing as a mistake, an accident or a coincidence.
phildee3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 04:59 PM.


Shoutbox provided by vBShout (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.