Free energy suppression

Mahatma coat · 03-03-2009 12:30AM

Diogenes wrote: »

Again you are just being intentionally difficult, alternative fuel sources also use MPG as a to comparable to a ordinary petrol/diesel engine.

So to put this in the most basic and elemental terms.

How. Many. Miles. Does. The. Joe. Battery. Get. Before. It. Needs. To. Be. RE- Charged.

the Car has an ALTERNATOR, like all normal cars, so I suppose it would depend on a lot of things, the stop start cycle, how long its left standing for if someone left the lights on overnight.

your lack of understanding of basic mechanics is not my fault

the Battery does not power the cell, the Alternator does

03-03-2009 12:47AM

Mahatma coat wrote: »

the Car has an ALTERNATOR, like all normal cars, so I suppose it would depend on a lot of things, the stop start cycle, how long its left standing for if someone left the lights on overnight.

your lack of understanding of basic mechanics is not my fault

the Battery does not power the cell, the Alternator does

Then how long does the water in the cell last?

Mahatma coat · 03-03-2009 12:51AM

King Mob wrote: »

Fair enough.

MC,

1) What evidence do you have the shows there is more energy being produced than is accounted for by the burning of hydrogen alone like you claim? (Orgone or whatever.)

the fact that after 8 weeks of daily use the Cell used about a teaspoon of water, I remember doing experiments with electrolysis in school, thats not enough hydrogen to run a car for 8 weeks

2) Why would the powers-that-be suppress a technology that stand to make the stupid huge amounts of money?

how would it make the Lizzzzzzards huge amounts of money, quite the opposite actually it would break their stranglehold over us

3) Can you supply any evidence that people have vanished because they invented some kind of free energy device?

I'm working on finding you difinitive proof of someone, but as you may guess all references to them have VANISHED

This isn't the first time I've asked any of these questions by the way.

and this isn't the first time I've answered them

also to the point of does it use Petrol

as I said initially you can set your car up to run EXCLUSIVLEY off one of these or you can set it up to run a dual fuel type system like LPG kits, my mate runs it in a dual fuel method as the Cell isnt quite big enough to propel the ute when its fully loaded, propels it no bother empty, but when he needs a bit of power for acceleration some petrol is used however when cruisin none is used, this can be demonstrated whilst drivin along by turnin the petrol OFF and the enginde still hums along.

the Cell was designed as a test unit and he just left it in there cos well ya know he went to all the bother of makin and fittin it, and it works fairly well, however we are going to make a larger one for the Merc which should run it exclusivley, so without the need for any petrol.

as for Lunar cycles, hey I dont know, hence the

when I mentioned them

03-03-2009 01:11AM

Mahatma coat wrote: »

the fact that after 8 weeks of daily use the Cell used about a teaspoon of water, I remember doing experiments with electrolysis in school, thats not enough hydrogen to run a car for 8 weeks

Any evidence that this is true?
If hydrogen isn't being burned then what is driving the pistons? Orgone?

Mahatma coat wrote: »

how would it make the Lizzzzzzards huge amounts of money, quite the opposite actually it would break their stranglehold over us

By producing better engines than the home made versions. Or build huge power plants to produce electricity without the cost of fossil fuels. Why is that so far fetched?

Mahatma coat wrote: »

I'm working on finding you difinitive proof of someone, but as you may guess all references to them have VANISHED

So it's a completely unfalsifiable claim with absolutely nothing to support it in the slightest?

Mahatma coat wrote: »

and this isn't the first time I've answered them

No it is the first time you've acknowledged them.

Mahatma coat wrote: »

also to the point of does it use Petrol

as I said initially you can set your car up to run EXCLUSIVLEY off one of these or you can set it up to run a dual fuel type system like LPG kits, my mate runs it in a dual fuel method as the Cell isnt quite big enough to propel the ute when its fully loaded, propels it no bother empty, but when he needs a bit of power for acceleration some petrol is used however when cruisin none is used, this can be demonstrated whilst drivin along by turnin the petrol OFF and the enginde still hums along.

the Cell was designed as a test unit and he just left it in there cos well ya know he went to all the bother of makin and fittin it, and it works fairly well, however we are going to make a larger one for the Merc which should run it exclusivley, so without the need for any petrol.

So hang on, he didn't run it for 8 weeks on one tablespoon at all?
And the cell can't actually move the car without petrol? How fast is this car?

So far you've claimed it isn't a free energy device, then claimed it was. You said it burned the gas, now you say it doesn't. You claimed it ran without petrol now you say it does.
You are not being entirely honest are you?

jonbravo · 03-03-2009 01:24AM

King Mob wrote: »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-point_energy

I'm not sure but it doesn't look like Zero point energy violates the laws of thermodynamics.

And there's no plausible mechanism by which any of the claimed devices could harness this energy.

It's possible that free energy might happen. However it very very unlikely that they are. So improbable in fact it is effectively impossible.

There is no evidence to suggest otherwise. So no reason to believe that anyone has harnessed it yet, let alone it's possible.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect i think this is evidence that zero point energy is possible, i dont think it would impove our world at this moment in time, but maybe better used in space ..

03-03-2009 02:04AM

jonbravo wrote: »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect i think this is evidence that zero point energy is possible, i dont think it would impove our world at this moment in time, but maybe better used in space ..

And if it is possible to get useful power form zero point energy it still wouldn't violate the laws of thermodynamics.

Mahatma coat · 03-03-2009 02:06AM

King Mob wrote: »

Any evidence that this is true?
If hydrogen isn't being burned then what is driving the pistons? Orgone?

Yep Orgone,

By producing better engines than the home made versions. Or build huge power plants to produce electricity without the cost of fossil fuels. Why is that so far fetched?

so let me get this straight, you could take your existing vehicle, spend about 200 quid and kit it out with one of these or you could give the Lizzzzzzards 30 grand to basicly do the same thing :rolleyes:

So it's a completely unfalsifiable claim with absolutely nothing to support it in the slightest?

oh there's plenty to support it if you ask around, just nothing on record in the public realm because people are scared.

No it is the first time you've acknowledged them.

I gave the answers a few posts in, is it my fault that its taken you tis long to figure out the questions

So hang on, he didn't run it for 8 weeks on one tablespoon at all?

OK I was avoidin this bit because certain tools will jump on this and ignore everything else I have said, leavin us in 2 pages time with a huge sh!tstorm about posts being taken out of context and no one really rememberin wht the OP was about
the car used in 8 weeks
Approximatley 1 teaspoon Tapwater
approximatley 15L 98 octane LRP

the battery was the same as when it started

the vehicle would have travelled an average of between 55 & 70KM per day, mostly in city trafic

And the cell can't actually move the car without petrol? How fast is this car?

the cell can move the vehicle without Petrol, did you miss the bit about the cell also being able to exclusivley power the vehicle

a Fully laden Ute weighs approx 3.5 Tonnes, the Cell has no problems propelling this along at 100K however if you needed to suddenly go from 60 to 100 when fully laden then Petrol gives more instant power than the cell which would have to build up, think of it as turbo lag on a diesel and a way around it.

So far you've claimed it isn't a free energy device, then claimed it was.

we have re evaluated the term free energy, its not Free energy as in it dont break the law of conservation of energy, its Very cheap and easy energy

You said it burned the gas, now you say it doesn't.

where do I say it dosent burn the Gas?

You claimed it ran without petrol now you say it does.

I said it can run an engine without petrol, or be used as a dual fuel system I've been sayin that from the start, you like others here are blinded by your bias and looking for things that arent there in posts to support your position while at the same time ignoring things that are

You are not being entirely honest are you?

read back over wht I have posted I think you will find I am consistent in what I say.

03-03-2009 02:34AM

Mahatma coat wrote: »

Yep Orgone,

So then how does the engine work if the hydrogen gas doesn't provide the power?

Mahatma coat wrote: »

so let me get this straight, you could take your existing vehicle, spend about 200 quid and kit it out with one of these or you could give the Lizzzzzzards 30 grand to basicly do the same thing :rolleyes:

Or they could supply the hydrogen as fuel negating the need to electrolyze in the vehicle make much much more efficient. Oh wait they have them: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_internal_combustion_engine_vehicle.
Or they could replace the existing power plants with hydrogen burning ones.
It's not like hydrogen fuel isn't way more expensive to produce, store, transport and use or anything.

Mahatma coat wrote: »

oh there's plenty to support it if you ask around, just nothing on record in the public realm because people are scared.

So no you have no verifiable evidence to support this idea. Instead you believe what people tell you?
Why do you believe that these stories are true if there is no supporting evidence?

Mahatma coat wrote: »

I gave the answers a few posts in, is it my fault that its taken you tis long to figure out the questions

Care to point this out? Was it when you just declared the fact it worked with no elaboration?

Mahatma coat wrote: »

OK I was avoidin this bit because certain tools will jump on this and ignore everything else I have said, leavin us in 2 pages time with a huge sh!tstorm about posts being taken out of context and no one really rememberin wht the OP was about

So you didn't mention the fact it runs on petrol despite being asked many times if it did because you didn't what people to know it ran on petrol?
Do you think this is an honest way to argue? Surely you realise there is a huge difference between "it runs on only water" and "it runs on water and alot of petrol"

Mahatma coat wrote: »

the car used in 8 weeks
Approximatley 1 teaspoon Tapwater
approximatley 15L 98 octane LRP

So no it did not run for eight weeks on "a teaspoon of water."
You were lying when you said that.

Mahatma coat wrote: »

the cell can move the vehicle without Petrol, did you miss the bit about the cell also being able to exclusivley power the vehicle

Yes after the petrol started the engine and got it to speed.

Mahatma coat wrote: »

a Fully laden Ute weighs approx 3.5 Tonnes, the Cell has no problems propelling this along at 100K however if you needed to suddenly go from 60 to 100 when fully laden then Petrol gives more instant power than the cell which would have to build up, think of it as turbo lag on a diesel and a way around it.

How fast does the car run without using petrol at any stage? And how long does it stay going?

Mahatma coat wrote: »

we have re evaluated the term free energy, its not Free energy as in it dont break the law of conservation of energy,

But now you claim that it generates power not produced from the hydrogen.

Mahatma coat wrote: »

its Very cheap and easy energy

Except for petrol. And the additional load but on the petrol engine due to the drain on the battery.

Mahatma coat wrote: »

where do I say it dosent burn the Gas?

The start of your post.

Mahatma coat wrote: »

I said it can run an engine without petrol, or be used as a dual fuel system I've been sayin that from the start, you like others here are blinded by your bias and looking for things that arent there in posts to support your position while at the same time ignoring things that are

No you claimed it ran on a teaspoon of water and said petrol was not involved.

Mahatma coat wrote: »

read back over wht I have posted I think you will find I am consistent in what I say.

No you not by your own admission.

QUOTE=Mahatma coat;59255650]
OK I was avoidin this bit because certain tools will jump on this and ignore everything else I have said[/QUOTE]

Also you have yet to show any independent evidence showing the effectiveness, fuel efficiency or anything for the joe cell.
Just your own anecdotal reports about a device you said yourself you do not understand.

jonbravo · 03-03-2009 02:37AM

King Mob wrote: »

And if it is possible to get useful power form zero point energy it still wouldn't violate the laws of thermodynamics.

i would agree with that!!

Mahatma coat · 03-03-2009 02:48AM

ME, first time you asked wrote:

King Mob wrote:

Ok after digging through a lot of bull**** I think I figured how this thing is supposed to work.

MC, how is this joe cell thing actually hooked up to the engine?

Pipe straight to the Carby

Is the car battery fully charged when it's started?

naturally, how else would it turn the starter motor

Does the car battery ever run out? If so how often?

no, even in the seventies cars had alternators to charge the batteries

Is there any petrol at all used in the engine even during start up?

this is interesting, it can run the engine all by itself or it can be used like an LPG kit, suppose it depends on the lunar cycle;) that is to say with a Straight six and the cell that he has if OOOMPH is required on the HWY then some petrol is used but for standard cruisin none is, this can be solved with a bigger cell, so if the cell is matched to the engine then no other fuel source would be required

any clearer?
__________________

this post answers all the questions you keep repeating, read it again, see if you understand it now 5 pages later

Mahatma coat · 03-03-2009 02:52AM

also for those of you interested in MPG I'm not sure over here they calculate in L/100Km and this works out at between 2 & 3

anyone want to work back

03-03-2009 02:55AM

Mahatma coat wrote: »

Quote:
Originally Posted by King Mob
Ok after digging through a lot of bull**** I think I figured how this thing is supposed to work.

MC, how is this joe cell thing actually hooked up to the engine?
Pipe straight to the Carby
Quote:
Is the car battery fully charged when it's started?
naturally, how else would it turn the starter motor
Quote:
Does the car battery ever run out? If so how often?
no, even in the seventies cars had alternators to charge the batteries
Quote:
Is there any petrol at all used in the engine even during start up?
this is interesting, it can run the engine all by itself or it can be used like an LPG kit, suppose it depends on the lunar cycle that is to say with a Straight six and the cell that he has if OOOMPH is required on the HWY then some petrol is used but for standard cruisin none is, this can be solved with a bigger cell, so if the cell is matched to the engine then no other fuel source would be required

any clearer?
__________________

his post answers all the questions you keep repeating, read it again, see if you understand it now 5 pages later

No it doesn't answer any of the questions I asked.

1) What evidence do you have the shows there is more energy being produced than is accounted for by the burning of hydrogen alone like you claim? (Orgone or whatever.)

2) Why would the powers-that-be suppress a technology that stand to make the stupid huge amounts of money?

3) Can you supply any evidence that people have vanished because they invented some kind of free energy device?

Plus you wanna address the other points I have since raised?

Mahatma coat · 03-03-2009 03:02AM

as I hve lso said I dont fully understand How it works just that it does. you cant seem to grasp that this device can power an engine all by itself.

I have answered those other questions already, I'm sick of repeatin meself, seriously go and build one, hook it up to your car, start the cell, start the engine, cut the petrol supply, be amazed at the fact that the car still goes and see if you can prove that its not powering your engine, its just a figment of your imagination propelling you along at 100KPH

03-03-2009 03:16AM

Mahatma coat wrote: »

as I hve lso said I dont fully understand How it works just that it does. you cant seem to grasp that this device can power an engine all by itself.

I have answered those other questions already, I'm sick of repeatin meself, seriously go and build one, hook it up to your car, start the cell, start the engine, cut the petrol supply, be amazed at the fact that the car still goes and see if you can prove that its not powering your engine, its just a figment of your imagination propelling you along at 100KPH

I never said it didn't provide any power to the engine. I figured out pretty early on it was burning hydrogen. However I was trying to see how efficient it is.
From what you said it's not very.

It's using the battery to electrolyze water, adding the hydrogen to the fuel or hydrogen straight to the engine.
However any additional power gained is probably offset by the power needed to electrolyze the water.
You probably can build one that doesn't need petrol to operate at all, but it'll be horribly inefficient.

However you where claiming more stuff that just this.
You said that the hydrogen didn't account for all the power produced.
You claim huge efficiencies.
You said this kind of technology is being suppressed.
You said that people have been killed for makeing things like the joe cell.
And shockingly you failed to produce an iota of evidence to support any of your claims. Not to mention the information you yourself admitted to holding back despite being asked directly.

meglome · 03-03-2009 05:50AM

jonbravo wrote: »

as you pointed out corporations are interested in free energy,yes they are, but why would they spend billions reseaching zero-point energy when oil companies and co[who ever you want to add] can buy this technology as soon as it becomes available, BUT who's going to make the bread for us all, to eat!? We the people, because there is still alot of money in oil at least 30 to 50 years some say,if its not broke dont fix it!? theres another thread for this stuff, back to the moonbase im having a party there everyone welcome:pac:

It is very expensive in general to extract oil. Why not extract less oil and use this 'free energy' to sell to the power grids? There is nothing here mutually exclusive. I can't being to see why it would need to be one or the other when then can easily sell both.

meglome · 03-03-2009 05:58AM

Mahatma I have to say you're not convincing me here. You've changed what is happening at least three times. Now I appreciate you said you don't fully understand it and nor do I. But if this technology works as you say then there is buckets of money to be made from it, truck loads of money. Do you honestly think that any country likes the Arabs having them by the balls with their oil supplies? This is where it all falls down, anyone who thinks this technology wouldn't be sold in a heartbeat is seriously deluding themselves.

javaboy · 03-03-2009 06:49AM

The car complicates things unnecessarily. If this machine can output more energy than is put in, then why not just build a small model to power a motor and nothing else?
You can work out the amount of hydrogen in the fuel and figure out the expected energy output if that hydrogen was used with 100% efficiency.

Then simply run the machine and measure the output energy. If it's even slightly over 100%, you've either disproved Newton or you've proved there is something else like Orgones cv work. Or else your calculations are wrong.

There are too many factors involved with a car. A simple proof of concept is all that's required. Nothing more.

If you can do even that one thing, a Nobel prize awaits I imagine. I won't hold my breath.

03-03-2009 10:00AM

javaboy wrote: »

The car complicates things unnecessarily. If this machine can output more energy than is put in, then why not just build a small model to power a motor and nothing else?
You can work out the amount of hydrogen in the fuel and figure out the expected energy output if that hydrogen was used with 100% efficiency.

Then simply run the machine and measure the output energy. If it's even slightly over 100%, you've either disproved Newton or you've proved there is something else like Orgones cv work. Or else your calculations are wrong.

There are too many factors involved with a car. A simple proof of concept is all that's required. Nothing more.

If you can do even that one thing, a Nobel prize awaits I imagine. I won't hold my breath.

You forgot the lunar cycle though - thats going to mess up any calculations.

6th · 03-03-2009 10:06AM

javaboy wrote: »

The car complicates things unnecessarily. If this machine can output more energy than is put in, then why not just build a small model to power a motor and nothing else?
You can work out the amount of hydrogen in the fuel and figure out the expected energy output if that hydrogen was used with 100% efficiency.

Then simply run the machine and measure the output energy. If it's even slightly over 100%, you've either disproved Newton or you've proved there is something else like Orgones cv work. Or else your calculations are wrong.

There are too many factors involved with a car. A simple proof of concept is all that's required. Nothing more.

If you can do even that one thing, a Nobel prize awaits I imagine. I won't hold my breath.

Damn you coming in here and talking sense!!

espinolman · 03-03-2009 11:13AM

jonbravo wrote: »

Free energy is not far away at all.

Well i don't think so , why has it been suppressed in the past , well because of money and power , now the carbon tax that is more money and power so free non-polluting energy will be suppressed even more because they will want more and more carbon tax , free non-polluting energy will probably be outlawed when they start getting the carbon taxes' now also internet 2 is coming out and there probably will only be a few hundred sites available , the old internet will be dismantled so all the knowledge on free non-polluting energy currently available will be gone .

meglome · 03-03-2009 11:44AM

espinolman wrote: »

Well i don't think so , why has it been suppressed in the past , well because of money and power , now the carbon tax that is more money and power so free non-polluting energy will be suppressed even more because they will want more and more carbon tax , free non-polluting energy will probably be outlawed when they start getting the carbon taxes' now also internet 2 is coming out and there probably will only be a few hundred sites available , the old internet will be dismantled so all the knowledge on free non-polluting energy currently available will be gone .

What the flupping hell are ya talking about?

03-03-2009 01:07PM

espinolman wrote: »

Well i don't think so , why has it been suppressed in the past , well because of money and power , now the carbon tax that is more money and power so free non-polluting energy will be suppressed even more because they will want more and more carbon tax , free non-polluting energy will probably be outlawed when they start getting the carbon taxes' now also internet 2 is coming out and there probably will only be a few hundred sites available , the old internet will be dismantled so all the knowledge on free non-polluting energy currently available will be gone .

Thank you for cheering up what has been a fairly ****ty day so far!

Quality post!

jonbravo · 03-03-2009 01:23PM

meglome wrote: »

It is very expensive in general to extract oil. Why not extract less oil and use this 'free energy' to sell to the power grids? There is nothing here mutually exclusive. I can't being to see why it would need to be one or the other when then can easily sell both.

free energy,theres still alot to do in this field.oil wont vanish it will sell as long as we need it/or until it runs out!!

Flamed Diving · 03-03-2009 01:26PM

espinolman wrote: »

Well i don't think so , why has it been suppressed in the past , well because of money and power , now the carbon tax that is more money and power so free non-polluting energy will be suppressed even more because they will want more and more carbon tax , free non-polluting energy will probably be outlawed when they start getting the carbon taxes' now also internet 2 is coming out and there probably will only be a few hundred sites available , the old internet will be dismantled so all the knowledge on free non-polluting energy currently available will be gone .

You do realise that placing a tax on carbon should reduce carbon levels.

i.e. people will move away from products that produce these.

jonbravo · 03-03-2009 01:26PM

espinolman wrote: »

Well i don't think so , why has it been suppressed in the past , well because of money and power , now the carbon tax that is more money and power so free non-polluting energy will be suppressed even more because they will want more and more carbon tax , free non-polluting energy will probably be outlawed when they start getting the carbon taxes' now also internet 2 is coming out and there probably will only be a few hundred sites available , the old internet will be dismantled so all the knowledge on free non-polluting energy currently available will be gone .

ok!!

stevedublin · 03-03-2009 02:58PM

espinolman wrote: »

Well i don't think so , why has it been suppressed in the past , well because of money and power , now the carbon tax that is more money and power so free non-polluting energy will be suppressed even more because they will want more and more carbon tax , free non-polluting energy will probably be outlawed when they start getting the carbon taxes' now also internet 2 is coming out and there probably will only be a few hundred sites available , the old internet will be dismantled so all the knowledge on free non-polluting energy currently available will be gone .

Exactly what I've been saying for years!

Jocksereire · 04-03-2009 12:39AM

Kernel wrote: »

This was explored in Nick Cook's excellent book 'The Hunt for Zero Point'. Good insight into the UFO phenomenon and the advanced propulsion research industry. A conspiracy classic imo.

just starting chapter 2 of this book now. so far so good!

bonkey · 04-03-2009 09:45AM

King Mob wrote: »

They are demonstrably accurate in all tests so far devised.
Which is more likely: that every piece of evidence supporting thermodynamics is completely wrong and fools scientists consistently or that the guy who madea free energy machine in his garage is either stupid, lying or both?

What about the third option, which you're omitting?

That option would be that the laws of thermodynamics are based on a mostly correct model of the phsyical systems, but that there are some "boundary cases" that have not been identified which can lead to results in conflict with the laws as we currently know them.

I do not believe for one second that this is what has happened...but lets look at this properly. When Einstein proposed relativity, it was quite difficult to find a test where the differences between his theory's predictions and those of classical Newtonian physics would be measurable. This test was found, and the Theory of Relativity validated. What is relevant to this discussion, however, is that this didn't mean that Newtonian physics was discarded, or that every prediction of it was perforce incorrect.

Mischaracterising the impact of a theory not being 100% correct does not serve to bring the discussion forwards. Finding cases which defy our understanding of the physical systems (as currently modelled using Thermodynamics) would not invalidate any single test carried out thus far...it would merely require that we find a cause which would lead to a revision of our predictive models.

I would suggest, rather, that we take the more standard position that exceptional claims require exceptional evidence. The onus on people claiming the exceptional is to provide this evidence. They don't even need the theory to explain it, as is suggested from time to time. All they need to do is to provide the details of a test which can be carried out and analyzed by interested third parties which demonstrates the effects, as well as details of the effects which are to be expected from such a test.

"Come to Oz and see for yourself" is, therefore, not exceptional evidence....although it is evidence that this technology can be freely promoted on the internet, thus falsifying any claim that it is somehow being suppressed.

04-03-2009 10:27AM

bonkey wrote: »

What about the third option, which you're omitting?

That option would be that the laws of thermodynamics are based on a mostly correct model of the phsyical systems, but that there are some "boundary cases" that have not been identified which can lead to results in conflict with the laws as we currently know them.

I do not believe for one second that this is what has happened...but lets look at this properly. When Einstein proposed relativity, it was quite difficult to find a test where the differences between his theory's predictions and those of classical Newtonian physics would be measurable. This test was found, and the Theory of Relativity validated. What is relevant to this discussion, however, is that this didn't mean that Newtonian physics was discarded, or that every prediction of it was perforce incorrect.

Mischaracterising the impact of a theory not being 100% correct does not serve to bring the discussion forwards. Finding cases which defy our understanding of the physical systems (as currently modelled using Thermodynamics) would not invalidate any single test carried out thus far...it would merely require that we find a cause which would lead to a revision of our predictive models.

I would suggest, rather, that we take the more standard position that exceptional claims require exceptional evidence. The onus on people claiming the exceptional is to provide this evidence. They don't even need the theory to explain it, as is suggested from time to time. All they need to do is to provide the details of a test which can be carried out and analyzed by interested third parties which demonstrates the effects, as well as details of the effects which are to be expected from such a test.

"Come to Oz and see for yourself" is, therefore, not exceptional evidence....although it is evidence that this technology can be freely promoted on the internet, thus falsifying any claim that it is somehow being suppressed.

But none of these devices offer a plausible method for producing the energy claimed. And the basis for such claims are usually based on a poor understanding of the physics involved.
So far the idea that the second law of thermodynamics holds for all closed systems has been supported in every case. And coupled with the poor grasp of physics displayed by the people making the claims means the is no reason to believe that the law has exceptions.
However if someone where to produce some really compelling evidence it might be worth some investigation.

The device that MC is describing seems to be rather useless.

espinolman · 04-03-2009 11:34AM

bonkey wrote: »

thus falsifying any claim that it is somehow being suppressed.

Joe Cell Truck Builder Threatened

http://pesn.com/2006/04/13/9600257_Bill_Williams_threatened/

Free energy suppression

Comments