Talk:Free energy suppression conspiracy theory

Material to include

Advanced and conventional free and renewable energy technologies that involve natural phenomena (such as sunlight, wind, tides and geothermal heat) have been repressed. This includes the adoption of workable free energy technology that can provide energy at reduced cost to consumers, reduce pollution levels, or increase energy/fuel efficiency.

This was taken out a few months ago (a bit after the article was 1st generated) ... the article at the time included non-advanced suppressed technology. People have re-purposed this article to exclude such material. J. D. Redding 00:12, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

YES, this becomes even more evident (or shall we say ironic?) when you try to find a wiki page about any of the suppressed inventors. If you are lucky they have only just been merged with their inventions. It should however be impossible for the suppressors to destroy this page. I'm very curious what they are going to make up in order to make the suppressed technology disappear from the page about suppression. I happen to suffer from this free energy suppression "delusion", so I have created this short overview.

Electric motors

• N.B.S. "disproved" Joseph Newman's Newman motor without consulting Mr Newman.
• Mythbusters "disproved" John Bedini's Bedini motor without consulting Mr Bedini.
• John Searl, (inventor of the Searl Effect Generator) was imprisoned for making his own electricity.
• David Hamel was buried in propaganda, frequently robed and debunked by Mythbusters.
• Floyd A. Sweet
• Howard Johnson

Does anyone object to adding this?

84.104.135.195 (talk) 03:39, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Mythbusters "disproved" Bedini motor

No comments required. They disproved it. — NRen2k5, 18:58, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The fact is that they made a machine that newer could have done anything, and as bedini told in an interview the motor didn't even have magnets and could never have generated electricity! Still though, they made it look like they tried to make it work, though they already knew that their "version" of his motor never could do anything.

It was only an attempt to discredit and ruin Bedini's reputation when he in recent times had gotten comfimation from many independent inventors that they had copied his design in the motor and made it work.--Nabo0o (talk) 18:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Gosh, if you had a credible reference for that, rather than an unfounded assertion, it might be something interesting to put in the article.Prebys (talk) 18:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The problem is newer the magnitude of evidence that is put forward, but allmost allways the ignorence and unwilingness to see it for youself. --Nabo0o (talk) 18:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Six misspellings in a single sentence is a little hard to parse, but do I take your response to mean that you don't, in fact, have a credible reference?Prebys (talk) 20:16, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Bad spelling, i know.

The refference i would recomend you was from a documentrary directed by Anthony J. Craddock which was about Bedini and his consepts of how the motor works, and also an interview with Tom Bearden. In the interview with John Bedini he tells how the guys from mythbusters isn't even close to replicating his devise and that it in no way could have generated any usable energy in the way they had set it up. It was only stunt to discredit him and his invention, and also all the others on the Bedini SSG yahoo group who had comfirmed their sucsess. Sadly, the entire movie has been removed from google videos, so you need to buy it if you want to see it. (alltough i have it on my computer)....... --Nabo0o (talk) 09:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

You're saying the only reference other than Bedini himself is Tom Bearden?!?!? I think we differ on the definition of "credible". You realize that Tom Bearden is a total nutball who admits he can't even make his own device work. Since I can hear all the Bearden-blather I want on YouTube, I am unlikely to buy the DVD.Prebys (talk) 15:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Where have you heard that the MEG doesn't work?

The problem for Tom Bearden was that he didn't get financial support that he needed in other to make the MEG reach the market. It did already produse an output of nearly 2 kilowatts, and dind't have any large complications with it. The only problem was that he couldn't mass distribute it before he had real scientific analyzes that explained how every function of the devise worked, and so far he had only finetuned it into creating an useable output, but that isn't enough if you want to make it a comercial product that can have stability and also work in the same way for everyone.

And in order to do that he would have needed to hire scienticst who were experts in four different spesial fields, and he could not effort that. Now, im not saying that you shuld buy it, but im saying that if you want to know in deept what it is he's talking about, you can go and look for a "free" version of it on the web.--Nabo0o (talk) 09:54, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you read the MEG article and supporting references. Bearden has never demonstrated a working prototype to anyone but himself. Nevertheless, he claimed the device worked when he patented it in 2001. At that time, he promised a commercial product "in a year or so". Now, six years later, he admits there's no working prototype and he still needs "$10-12 million" to bring it to market. He never really explains what's the money's for, since it seems like a device like this would sort of sell itself. Your claim is, as I understand it, is that he can't sell it because he doesn't really know how it works, right? That's strange, because his website and Youtube are choc-a-bloc full of "Bearden-speak" gobbledegook. Nevertheless, are you really saying that no one would buy a working perpetual motion machine unless they had a scientific explanation of how it worked?!?!? OK, let's say that's so. You can get a very good physicist for $200K/yr, including benefits, so $10 million would buy you 50 man-years of effort. I guess you're telling me we're going to have to wait a while for the Tom Bearden revolution. I, for one, won't hold my breath :)Prebys (talk) 13:42, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the topic of Bedini SSG and the busters' non-reproduction, I agree that this episode was an act of suppression, and agree that Bedini was not critical enough of these guys non-reproduction efforts. Here maybe what is what Are there reliable sources that repeat similar analysis points that can be used in this article? Oldspammer (talk) 07:38, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

No.Prebys (talk) 11:29, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Exactly--this is the free energy suppression that the article is supposed to be addressing.

Did anyone bother to read my linked critique of the Buster's non-reproduction?

Any rebuttal about _ANY_ of the criticisms found therein? Oldspammer (talk) 10:35, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Your question was "Are there reliable sources that repeat similar analysis points that can be used in this article?". The answer is "no", there are not. Everything on the topic is self-published nonsense. You seem to have the burden of proof backwards. For at least 10 years, Bedini has been making claims which violate the laws of physics as we understand them, and not a single one of these have ever been verified by anything approaching a credible source. It is 100% his responsibility to substantiate these claims, rather than the responsibility of others eo refute them.Prebys (talk) 14:37, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, when even one Buster critic can raise one valid concern, the Busters score a FAIL. Your concept of nonsense must be very unconventional? You will probably find one or two items of many and grasp upon those few straws, that when removed will leave no nonsense to pick upon--still giving the Busters a FAIL with the remaining valid criticisms?

The trouble is that a number of You Tube users have carefully replicated the (single coil) Bedini SSG motor and have found it to work to charge dead batteries (increasing their capacity). Complete over-unity, however, is rarely achieved. Component selection may be key in optimizing its efficiency. Dead batteries are virtually impossible to charge properly with conventional chargers because their capacities keep going downward. It seems a mockery that no credible persons have even looked at this when even some amateurs were able to replicate this experiment. We casual observers are then left to question that are the claims of suppression accurate? Oldspammer (talk) 20:44, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Youtube videos are not a WP:RS. Also, I remind you this page is NOT a place for a general discussion about free energy claims; it's about improving the article. Neither the Mythbusters nor Bedini are currently even mentioned in this this article, nor does the John Bedini article currently make any claim of suppression. It's long been the consensus that a supposed free energy device not appearing on the market is not, in itself, evidence of suppression - the more parsimonious explanation being that said device simply does not work. Please bring the discussion on topic (ie, suggestions for the article) or drop it.Prebys (talk) 21:08, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

It's still off topic, but I can see how an unusual electric or electromagnetic waveform might recharge dead batteries without it being "free energy". It would use energy in a way conventional battery chargers would not. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:06, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Like many of these things, claims are vague and contradictory. There are some claims that a Bedini motor can charge a battery, which then runs it indefinitely in a closed loop. That would certainly be on topic, if there were claims of suppression. However, Oldspammer's argument seems to be based on the fallacious logic "Mr. X makes over-unity claim"+"Mr. X's product has not appeared on the market" -> "Mr X is being suppressed". This article used to be choc-a-bloc full of things like that, until we cleaned it up and introduced some standards.Prebys (talk) 08:18, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

What I was trying to say is that it could be a useful device, even if not "over-unity". For example, it could charge dead batteries which could not be charged by conventional means. I know something about electrical waveforms and ]electromagnetic fields, but little about the chemistry of dry cells. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:32, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, YouTube "science" videos are almost always faked...they aren't just unreliable, they are anti-reliable. The mere existence of a YouTube video purporting to prove something unlikely is an almost certain guarantee that the thing is untrue. For some reason, people love to make fake science videos - and it's childishly easy to do. This is the reason why Wikipedia dismisses them as evidence for just about everything. It truly doesn't matter a damn what you've seen on YouTube...it has zero bearing on this discussion.

Secondly, the claim to "recharge dead batteries" is a notorious failure of understanding. Try the following experiment: Take a flashlight whose battery is getting low. Turn it on until the light dims and fails completely. Then turn it off, wait a few seconds and turn it on again, and the light will again light and slowly die. Depending on the type of battery, you can do this a couple of times until the battery is fully dead. Did the battery "recharge"? No...it is merely a phenomenon of dead/dying batteries that letting them rest a while will allow you to operate them for a little longer to get the last dregs of power out of them. The reason is complicated chemistry - but relates to a phenomenon called "Polarization". I can't tell you the number of people who have been fooled by this phenomenon into honestly thinking that they've cleverly built a magic battery recharger...thinking that if only they could "perfect it" then it would produce untold amounts of free energy. I strongly suspect that fakers of machines that purport to produce free energy are abusing this effect to produce some of their demonstrations. Hence, whenever you see a demonstration that uses battery recharging as its' end result...suspect this mechanism before you are suckered in to believing that the laws of thermodynamics are incorrect.

SteveBaker (talk) 10:43, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

@Prebys, to improve the article should "we" be arguing using strawman issues that you ascribed to me?

Topic Busters coverage of Bedini's motors--media effort to dismiss his claims. While YT is not WP:RS, numerous reproductions posted (not all faked) show it is NOT over unity, but is nowhere near to being as ridiculously inefficient as that demonstrated by the busters--demonstrating prejudicial trickery on the part of the MIT physics guy appearing on that episode. But if no source can be cited to state this reliably, then we must wait for one to appear... Oldspammer (talk) 12:02, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

John Searl, imprisoned for making his own electricity

Source? I find precious little on the topic myself, other than that he was imprisoned for stealing electricity. — NRen2k5, 15:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Making your own electricity was considered theft. Readers will be unable to get a picture of the suppression if we don't list all the imprisoned inventors. Meyer, and Pantone also got locked up. The context is the main drive of the conspiracy theory.84.104.135.195 (talk) 21:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I haven't found any reliable references about Searl's imprisonment, and those I have found say he was stealing energy from the grid. Meyer wasn't locked up; he was forced to repay investors the money they had given him for "dealerships" after being found guilty of "gross and egregious fraud" in civil court. Pantone was imprisoned for good old fashioned securities fraud (not surprising after he hooked up with the likes of Dennis Lee)Prebys (talk) 19:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Searl may have somehow initially avoided paying fines for stealing electricity, but later was convicted of destroying electric utility equipment by cutting bolts on transmission tower anchoring supports, and chain saw cutting into power poles as a revenge for the utility having taken him to court for having to pay the stealing electricity fines. His destructive actions were noted by the court as endangering lives since the transmission lines supported by the tower in question served a large part of the region, and had it fully collapsed could have cut power to hospitals, etc. Boyd Bushman (Lockheed) says Searl's technology was witnessed by too many independent witnesses to have been all fraud. Searl, however, is not altogether an honest person either. In The John Searl Story DVD, he claims victory over the power company for the stealing electricity fines, but omits telling about being convicted and imprisoned for destroying property and potentially endangering lives like a kook. This is from YT videos, one of which supposedly shows the newspaper clippings about the conviction. Oldspammer (talk) 12:22, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

David Hamel debunked by Mythbusters

I don’t know about his other contributions, but his antigravity generator was a total failure — NRen2k5, 15:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that would be exactly the treatment he has been getting all his life. 84.104.135.195 (talk) 08:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

you don’t need the Mythbusters to tell you as much. — NRen2k5, 15:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Mythbusters debunked the Minto wheel, Hamel, Bedini. Nothing worked in their hands. This is how free energy suppression works.

They could have shown everyone on the whole world a working Bedini battery charger but in stead they ridiculed him on TV. John was willing to show them how to build it. And they are still not willing to talk with him about it.

More luxurious TV suppression as that I can not imagine. you? 84.104.135.195 (talk) 08:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Almost nothing worked in the hands of the Mythbusters because almost nothing worked - period. You have to be fair and admit that the "antigravity" glider DID work - it worked perfectly - and to their credit they were suitably amazed that it did. The only snag being that those things AREN'T antigravity machines - they use an "ionic breeze" effect (and a VAST amount of power compared to the lift they generate). But the team only discovered this when they carefully tested the machine in a vacuum and proved that it lifts off because of a gentle thrust of air and not because it reverses gravity.

Their methods (in that episode) were actually pretty much 'by the book'. Science proceeds by independent verification. You invent something - you write about it and describe what you did in detail. Then, I read what you wrote and independently try to reproduce the experiment you did using only your description of it. If it works then that is verification of your description - I publish my verification and science takes another step forwards. If you built a machine, then build another one for me (or even help me build it) then that independence is gone - and the description you published (and I subsequently verify) is missing some key information. Later on, nobody else can reproduce your work and you get ignored...not suppressed...ignored. So Mythbusters did exactly the right thing by refusing help...they followed the scientific method. You may argue that the scientific method is wrong - but that's another debate.

Antigravity machines are a joke. Gravity is literally a warping of space - you can see this with effects like gravitational lensing - not just a theoretical matter - it was how Einstein was proven to be correct. They watched a star as it passed behind the sun during a solar eclipse - and it did PRECISELY what Einstein said it would do. We now use gravitational lensing as a practical tool to see further into the universe by using the gravity of entire galaxies to act as lenses. Any funky amateur explanation for how it works has to include the realities of what we're actually achieving with our modern theory of gravity - or it's demonstrably B.S.

If gravity was like light - particles or waves travelling in neat straight lines - then blocking it would be a reasonable thing. But to block gravity, you'd have to somehow un-warp curved space. This would be highly noticable if you did it over the space of a small device. I you could cancel all of the curvature due to the earth in the space of a box maybe half a meter on a side - then light rays would warp around it - all sorts of peculiar time distortions would be readily apparent. None (not a single one) of these quack "inventors" have mentioned any of these very strange side-effects such as would certainly be there if they had achieved this miraculous thing. They only ever talk about the obvious thing - which is that objects would lose their weight and float off...they talk about flying machines and such.

If they were sufficiently smart scientists and mathematicians, they could probably fake their reports to include the effects we know we'd see if this were genuinely an antigravity machine - but they are all "gifted amateurs" (yeah..."gifted") and they don't know enough science even to convincingly lie to us.

SteveBaker (talk) 16:43, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Floyd A. Sweet

Never heard of him. Google tells me he worked with Bearden, with magnets. Magnets are not a source of energy, let alone free energy, so this is yet another dead end. — NRen2k5, 15:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

The conspiracy theory doesn't need to be right or wrong. It is merely based on the hundreds of inventors. Here is Floyd's story.

http://www.panacea-bocaf.org/floydsweet.htm

84.104.135.195 (talk) 08:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Anything endorsed by Tom Bearden doesn't need any further suppression.Prebys (talk) 19:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Howard Johnson

Another one I’ve never heard of, who also claimed to have made a free energy machine using magnets. (This is not looking good so far.) — NRen2k5, 15:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I do not have to prove the conspiracy theory, the theory is not on trial here. You have never heard of the suppressed inventor. This is what suppression means. If you would know about him then it wouldn't be suppressed.

I didn't see any reason in your reasoning not to put the context of the conspiracy theory on the page about the conspiracy theory?

I understand it doesn't make much sense looking at each case individually, it's the number of people that makes the theory interesting. 84.104.135.195 (talk) 08:34, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

A conspiracy would involve suppression of working technology. These devices were suppressed by the fact they don't workPrebys (talk) 19:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Ren was questioning his notability, and I'd tend to agree; he doesn't seem to be particularly notable. We are not here to promote your viewpoint; we are here to write a good encyclopedia. Titanium Dragon (talk) 11:58, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Prebys - Perhaps you can provide some evidence that some of these ideas don't work and maybe then your opinions would have some validity. Mythbusters are "special effects" people, not scientists, and are worth nothing but mindless entertainment. Perhaps you should look into some of the Electromagnetic theories and basic electromagnetism before you write people off with an unsupported, biased, blanket statement like you did. This is a working product with video evidence. Perhaps you could explain to them how their system doesn't work.Nattyb52 (talk) 12:58, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

First of all, you're a little confused about how scientific evidence works. When someone makes a claim that violates the laws of physics as we understand them, the burden of proof is entirely on them, not everyone else. Second, I'm not sure why you're bringing up the Mythbusters in this thread. The Mythbusters have not been invoked wrt Howard Johnson. I'm also not sure why you thought a basic E&M tutorial was appropriate. Basic E&M is what shows these devices don't work. There are several problems with your LuTec reference:

• Wikipedia is quite clear that self-published websites are not a proper reference (let alone self-published commercial websites).
• Their page was last updated over two years ago. A real over-unity device would have made a bigger splash than that by now. You don't need the laws of physics to know it doesn't work. Occam's Razor is enough.
• This article is not a clearing house for free energy claims. It's specifically about alleged free energy suppression. Lutec makes no allegations of suppression, and the fact that the Lutec page has sat unmolested for two years is a pretty strong indication no suppression is ocurring.Prebys (talk) 21:48, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Solar energy

Has anyone researched whether there has been any evidence to indicate that oil companies have suppressed SOLAR ENERGY technology? I heard somewhere that 750 square miles of modern solar panels could meet the entire world's energy needs. Is there any validity to this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickgrowsontrees (talk • contribs) 06:39, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

The book 'The Sun Betrayed' claimed solar energy production was being suppressed 18:32, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the numbers add up. I read (a long long time ago) that 1000 square miles could meet Arizona's energy needs. Even with improvements in solar panel efficiency, the stated comment seems improbable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:14, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

(Data taken from Solar panel and Solar energy and Earth articles if you want to check my figures): Total solar energy reaching the earth's surface is 86,000 TeraWatts. Humans use 15 TeraWatts. Typical solar panels are between 5% and 18% efficient - say 10% on average - so we need to trap 150 TeraWatts of sunlight in order to generate enough energy. That's 150/86,000'ths of the earth's surface. The surface area of the Earth is 500 million square kilometers - so you'd need 500,000,000 x 150 / 86,000 = 870,000 square kilometers which is about 330,000 square miles of solar panels. Obviously that's a very rough average - you'd need more of them if you put them in antarctica - and less if you put them on the equator...but even at the equator you'd need maybe 150,000 square miles of panels. You'd have to cover the whole of Spain and Germany - or (for you Americans) all of Texas plus all of Utah. Even with 50% efficient panels - you'll need an insanely large area. I don't know how much energy Arizona needs - but that state probably uses less than 1/330th of the world's energy - and they're pretty close to the equator - so I could easily believe 1000 square miles of Arizona desert would cover their energy needs.

If we believe User:Arthur Rubin's Arizona number - we can do the math in reverse: The population of Arizona is only 6 million. We need energy for 6 BILLION people...a thousand times more people is a thousand times more area - so you go from 1,000 square miles of panels to a million square miles. Of course most humans are using a lot less energy per capita than the average Arizonan - so we could easily imagine only needing a third of that number of panels on the average - which gets us back to that same 330,000 square miles number from the opposite direction.

QED.

Future solar panels might be 50% efficient - and if we put them out in space where the 30% losses in the atmosphere were no problem then we'd only need 1/15th of the area - but that's still 20,000 square miles - which is a LOT of spaceships!

SteveBaker (talk) 14:24, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Well. No. You'd need exactly twice that, a 330,000 square mile grid on both sides of the planet, because the earth rotates. That 330,000 square miles represents a square almost 375 miles on edge. Most cars couldn't make it from one end of the structure to the other on a single tank of gas. Hell, it's more than twice the area of Germany.

And unless I'm mistaken, it would be impossibly expensive to build, at least for the foreseeable future. --King Öomie 22:03, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Solar concentrators with sun tracking and solar salt systems are capable of producing huge leaps in the amount of energy captured and produced per square meter. Wind concentrators will be next and other systems are coming online. Why do so many want to see alternative energy fail? Current PV panels are 30% efficient. Not sure why this is even being discussed here, but before throwing the baby out with the wash, I think perhaps the doubters on here should look a little closer at what they are talking about. http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2006/08/boeing-to-provide-solar-concentrators-for-australian-outback-45767 Nattyb52 (talk) 15:044, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Numbers dont add up, math is screwed up. The earth receives around 20 MW of solar power per capita. Converted to electricity at a 10%, adds up to 2 MW per capita. We need around 5KW per capita to supply not just residential demand, which is barely around 10% of the total, but also industrial and to move vehicles, and we receive 400 times more energy than needed even if every human were to enjoy first world living standards. Amounts to 150 square meters per capita or 900.000 square kilometers, the size of Venezuela. Is that too much? I say no, placed in context. We are only talking about 150 square meters per capita, of course its going to be a lot of land given the huge world population. So what about it, Algeria alone is 3 times bigger and they are not running out of sun baked wastelands. Plus solar panels are stupid anyway. Far better is thermal solar power, non concentrated... forget about mirrors, lenses and trackers. Just heat water to 75 degrees with a black flat plate and run it down a Stirling. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.65.80.176 (talk) 22:41, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Your conclusion of ~150 sq.meter per person for solar power is about right - but the way you got there is all wrong!

• According to Insolation, the earth receives an average of 1,366 W/sq.meter from the sun and according to Earth the area of the earth is 510,072,000 km or 5x10^14 sq.meters - which is ~7x10^17 Watts - over 7 billion people, that's around 10^8 Watts per person...100MW per capita - not 20MW - your numbers are off by a factor of 5.
• Your 5kW per capita for consumption is also way low. According to World_energy_consumption, the total energy consumption of the world in 2008 was 15 terawatts (1.5x10^13 Watts) - that's over ~7 billion people (7x10^9) - so the average per capita consumption is 2x10^4 watts. 20kW per capita - not 5kW - so you're off by a factor of 4 the other way.
• According to Solar panel, a typical panel under typical conditions generates 140 Watts per sq.meter - so 20kW/140W/sq.m gives around 140 sq. meters per person...if the panel is illuminated 24/7. Sadly, it won't be because it gets dark at night and sometimes it's cloudy.

The numbers I calculated above are about right - and we computed them in two different ways and got the same answer...so I'm confident of those figures. The conclusions were that we'd need 870,000 square kilometers of panels for the entire planet - which works out at 124 sq.meters per person...close enough to 140 sq.meters to not be worth arguing about. SteveBaker (talk) 20:41, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

(Incidentally - calculations such as that we'd have to cover Germany with solar panels to do this are a little off-putting - but consider instead that the total area covered by buildings world-wide is estimated to be around 1.5 million sq.km - so covering every rooftop in the world with solar panels would solve the problem without consuming any new land area). SteveBaker (talk) 21:03, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Cars

• The water powered car by, former NASA scientist Daniel Dingle is patent pending since 1969.
• Bulgarian Scientist yull brown, inventor of browns gas was murdered with uranium dust. See Oxyhydrogen
• Josef Papp, never produced more as one noble gas engine at a time.
• Stanley Meyer, invented the water fuel cell then was poisoned.
• Paul Pantone, the inventor of the geet plasma reactor was framed for securities fraud.
• Rudolf Diesel had an unfortunate accident.
• Great American Streetcar Scandal
• Who killed the electric car

water powered car by, Daniel Dingle

Water is not a fuel. This is Chemistry 101. — NRen2k5, 15:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Dingle is a former NASA scientist. He claims his water car technology was suppressed. Sure, it's just a kind of electrolysis cell using salt as the electrolyte. If it works is not important. He claims he was suppressed.84.104.135.195 (talk) 21:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

So? I can claim I’m the Queen Of France.… — NRen2k5, 17:25, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Dingle (sometimes "Dingel") also claims it's patented, although no patent exists. He is at various times described as "Former NASA Scientist", "Former NASA Engineer" (N.B. engineers and scientists are different), and "Former NASA employee" (ie, could have been a janitor). In fact, there's no evidence he ever had anything to do with NASA. Jeez, even on Wikipedia there have to be some standards for what to include. For example, claims based entirely on YouTube videos probably shouldn't qualify.Prebys (talk) 20:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Doing a bit more research, where did anyone get the idea this guy ever worked for NASA? Here is a whole piece on the car . He never mentions NASA, and certainly no one who speaks English as badly as he does ever worked in the US as a scientist or engineer. Also, he doesn't mention anything about "suppression"; he just says he didn't like the terms of the offers. Please try to stay on topic.Prebys (talk) 22:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Spoiler: you need more energy to break apart water molecules into their constituent parts than you gain from said constituent parts. It's not over-unity by any stretch. Hydrogen fuel is only being used in cars because it's clean. --King Öomie 15:50, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

yull brown's browns gas

I won’t even bother touching the conspiracy aspect of this. He didn’t invent Brown’s Gas. It’s just a name for a stoichiometric mixture of oxygen and hydrogen. It also isn’t free energy. It’s just the Water Car scam played from a different angle. — NRen2k5, 15:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC) No lets bother touching the conspiracy aspect. He holds patents, his machines have been on the market for more then 50 years now he got death threads and was murdered. That should be enough to list him?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brown%27s_gas&oldid=137348205

This is my page: http://clean-nuclear-energy.go-here.nl (feel free to copy and past it's text to a more appropriate location) I clearly buy into this conspiracy theory. But the denial of the conspiracy makes up half it's existence. 84.104.135.195 (talk) 21:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

“He holds patents, his machines have been on the market for more then 50 years now he got death threads and was murdered.”

I won’t argue about the patents. Those are fairly unimportant. Something doesn’t have to work to be patented. Same goes for how long his machines have been on the market. As for the death threats and murder, you’ll have to show me the source of this information so I can verify it myself.

“This is my page: http://clean-nuclear-energy.go-here.nl”

Wow, that’s really terrible. — NRen2k5, 17:42, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Josef Papp

Right. Papp, who never produced a working engine, and managed to kill a man with a non-working one, and then played the “blame the skeptic” game. — NRen2k5, 15:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC) You changed the story. The skeptic was blown up by a running engine, the engine didn't have a gas tank. Forensics found no fuel or explosives so Papp was not guilty of murder but no credible cite that I know of. 84.104.135.195 (talk) 21:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

No credible cite. That’s a recurring problem with this tinfoil hat stuff. Here’s a tip for you: If there’s no credible cite for a certain piece of information, it’s probably because it isn’t true! — NRen2k5, 17:47, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

The witness to the whole Papp motor thing was Richard Feynman, who claims the motor was most likely running on a wall plug. In any event, Papp wasn't killed, so how did this incident "suppress" the technology?Prebys (talk) 20:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

You'll never get conspiracy theorists to accept this. They Know^© that if there's no reference, it's being suppressed. In their minds, there is literally no way to ever prove them wrong. Unfalsifiability at its illogical peak. --King Öomie 15:53, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Stanley Meyer was poisoned

Bzzt! Wrong! Meyer invented nothing, and died of an aneurism. — NRen2k5, 15:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

The Water_fuel_cell has it's own page. I think the suppression starts where water-fuel is deemed a perpetual motion device. Nothing in the Meyer theories suggests a closed system. Even if it's a million percent efficient it still needs watter to run. 84.104.135.195 (talk) 21:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

“I think the suppression starts where water-fuel is deemed a perpetual motion device. Nothing in the Meyer theories suggests a closed system.”

It is a perpetual motion device – or more specifically, a free energy device, because it assumes you can get energy out of nowhere. Whether it’s an open system or a closed system is irrelevant. It doesn’t produce nearly as much energy as it consumes.

“Even if it's a million percent efficient it still needs watter to run.”

If it worked, that would be trivial, since it would produce water as exhaust, and you could recycle it through the system. The problem is that it isn’t a million percent efficient. It’s not even 100%. Not even close. In the end, all it does is waste energy. — NRen2k5, 18:08, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

That whole "closed loop" think may seem simple to you and me, but you wouldn't believe how much time is spent arguing about it on the talk:water_fuel_cell page. You may be beating your head against the wall.Prebys (talk) 20:22, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Paul Pantone was framed for securities fraud

Nope, wasn’t framed. — NRen2k5, 15:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC) There are enough people who agree he was framed. Just saying it isn't so doesn't unmake that. View the videos of a motor running on Pepsi others running on 50% watter. Among other things he build 280 mpg car then was locked away over 25k just like Meyer. Apparently there was no market opportunity for a 200+ mpg vehicle. If there was then 25k would be laughable. Don't you think? 84.104.135.195 (talk) 21:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

“There are enough people who agree he was framed.”

Enough people for what? Millions of people believe the moon landings were faked, but that doesn’t make it true, either.

“Just saying it isn't so doesn't unmake that.”

Just saying it is so doesn’t make it.

“View the videos of a motor running on Pepsi others running on 50% watter.”

I have, and I’m not impressed. Videos are easily faked. And these guys don’t even give numbers. You could probably run an ordinary engine on a 50-50 gas-water mix. It would run like crap, but it would still run. Just because someone shows you something doesn’t mean it’s exactly what they say it is. — NRen2k5, 19:56, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

The Apollo hoax has it's own page. The GEET technology is original research , there are "only" videos[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15] We are not trying to research the tech (I think), Paul got tricked so many times, it has become hard to miss.

- He got four months for securities fraud. After three and a half(March 2006) he was transferred to the mental hospital with no time limit set.

- The court contends that he's not yet competent to receive sentencing.

- Paul is being denied phone and visitation rights, his mail never leaves the hospital.

- The Utah court refused to acknowledge its own lack of jurisdiction. Pantone’s corporation was based in Nevada, the "fraud" took place in Idaho.

- His patient advocate is married to the woman who would represent the hospital in any court disputes with patients. but...

- Paul’s marriage therapist Dr. Wilfred Higashi, former head of mental health for the state of Utah is dismissed over conflict of interest.

- At the hospital, Paul was told, “Mr. Pantone, you are delusional . . . and we are going to fix you.”

- Through a relentless series of frustrating status hearings since March of 2006, the Utah courts have repeatedly denied Paul Pantone his constitutional right to represent himself.

- The court has also denied Pantone his constitutional right to have a skilled friend of the court represent him, because Pantone’s friend is not a BAR certified attorney in Utah.

That is just the tip of the iceberg[16]. I read a news article where his "doctor" said he was nuts because he thought the state turned against him. You ever hear such a good reason to lock some one up? (I can try find the link if we need it) Paul turned down offers for millions got threatened as a result then was locked away over 25K. There are lots of working GEET devices and there are enough other water powered car technologies to fuel the conspiracy.

There has to be a way to turn this into a good article? What are your thoughts? 84.104.135.195 (talk) 10:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Stick to the facts, present them in a neutral manner and provide legitimate sources, and you’re fine. Looks like you’ll have your work cut out for you. — NRen2k5, 18:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

umm, if no-one can visit him, and his mail is not being forwarded, how does anyone know what he is being told at the hospital? Emteeoh (talk) 17:36, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

MIT Plasmatron

In 1995 MIT patented a technology much like Pantone's Fuel Processor[17]. "The microplasmatron fuel converter (plasmatron, winner of the 1999 Discover Award for Technological Innovation) is a device that would be used on a vehicle to transform gasoline or other hydrocarbons into hydrogen rich gas."[18] here is a video [19]. Their plans with the technology don't look very promising: "Use of plasma hydrogen technology to treat diesel exhaust shows promise for meeting strict 2010 EPA requirements."[20]. In older documentation they talk of "Capability for processing a very wide range of fuel (including diesel, biomass derived fuels, heavy oils)"[21] No talk of Pepsi jet but it's close enough to the GEET to see the conspiracy in it (for me).84.104.135.195 (talk) 10:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

And it isn’t free energy in either case. If it works, it’s a way to turn raw materials into easily usable fuel. — NRen2k5, 18:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, except for the use of the term "plasma", the plasmatron bears no resemblance at all to Pantone's device. Plus, there is no evidence it's being suppressed in any way. Plus, as you say, it's not free energy.Prebys (talk) 20:50, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

John Kanzius

5/22/2007 "Retired TV station owner and broadcast engineer, John Kanzius, wasn't looking for an answer to the energy crisis. He was looking for a cure for cancer."[22]84.104.135.195 (talk) 10:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

And he found neither. His method of splitting water is novel, but it isn’t free energy. I don’t know if it has even yet been determined how it stacks up against electrolysis. — NRen2k5, 18:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Rudolf Diesel had an unfortunate accident

Did Diesel even have anything to do with free energy? You’re really reaching now. — NRen2k5, 15:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC) Diesel wanted to make an engine that could run on anything. For example hemp oil. The Diesel engine is very popular in Europe in contrast with the US. 84.104.135.195 (talk) 21:37, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Any thing, or any oil? — NRen2k5, 20:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Great American Streetcar Scandal

Shame you missed this. — NRen2k5, 15:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC) I don't know anything about this. It still doesn't have to be true for people to believe in it?WP:FRINGE84.104.135.195 (talk) 21:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Who killed the electric car

The 1990s electric car was stillborn. — NRen2k5, 15:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC) The film wonders what happened with the electric auto. People loved their e-car but they had to return it for destruction. This lends credibility to the conspiracy theory. 84.104.135.195 (talk) 21:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Electric cars may be a good idea, but they are not "free energy" by any definition of the term. Whether or not there is a conspiracy to suppress them, they are OT for this article.Prebys (talk) 22:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

hemp oil and ethyl alcohol

The diesel engine was designed it to run on vegetable and seed oils like hemp. Henry Ford's first Model-T was built to run on hemp gasoline. "There is fuel in every bit of vegetable matter that can be fermented" 1925 -Henry Ford 84.104.135.195 (talk) 22:18, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Point being? My point will be that unless you’re stealing or taking something unwanted (e.g. used cooking oil), for now hemp oil, vegetable oil, canola oil, etc. will be more expensive than diesel. It’s possible, and cool to use oils other than diesel, but that doesn’t mean it’s practical. — NRen2k5, 20:11, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts on this. Diesel typically refers a petroleum product while Mr Diesel intended his engines to run on seed oils and vegetable oils (including hemp). In other words a Diesel engine is suppose to run on cooking oil. Using local resources isn't stealing, something unwanted or more expensive. Hemp is very profitable for farmers. Agricultural Commissioner Roger Johnson says: "It's legal for us to import the (hemp) stalks and the seed and turn them into clothes and food, but it's not legal for us to grow it. What's the sense in that?"; North Dakota and other states are considering a lawsuit to challenge the ban.[23] William Randolph Hearst associated marijuana with hemp and published the stories of Harry J. Anslinger Harry J. Anslinger#The campaign against marijuana 1930-1937. As a result the US is the only major industrialized nation where hemp is considered a drug. In the Netherlands adults can legally buy pot while even Medical cannabis is forbidden in the US.[24] Even doctors may-not prescribe the fuel.[25] It's easy to see how the conspiracy theory works really? 84.104.135.195 (talk) 04:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

It’s easy to see the wilful ignorance behind it. You’re still overlooking the practicality and cost effectiveness of using vegetable or hemp oil as a fuel. They’re not as good as with diesel. But since that little fact interferes with your theory……… — NRen2k5, 18:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

This article concerns the supposed suppression of free energy technology. While "free" can legitimately be extended to include very cheap things like water, hemp oil is NOT free, ethyl alcohol is NOT free, and electric cars are NOT free. Please try to stay on topic and don't try to make this a forum for every conspiracy theory under the sun.Prebys (talk) 21:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, conspiracy theorists -are crazy-, and I'm not exactly sure where conspiracy theories about biofeuls would fit (unless they have their own article). However, I also agree that they are not "free energy" in the sense of the conspiracy theory, though on the other hand, energy conspiracy theorists seldom know enough about what they're talking about to make that particular distinction in the first place. It may be intimiately related to the point where it may be worth noting, but that said, I haven't seen a lot about it and it doesn't seem to really fall in the same category as the perpetual motion machines/water engines/ect. that this article seems to be focused on. Titanium Dragon (talk) 11:54, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, one could imagine a separate page on the alleged suppression of alternative energy technology, such as electric cars, wind energy, or other cases where there's no question the technology itself actually exists. While I'm personally skeptical about the level of such suppression, there's probably enough out there to build a decent article. However, as you say, many of these people can't distinguish between an electric car and a car which claims to run on water, so the noise level is likely to be high.Prebys (talk) 15:19, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

In cases where it is not completely clear to you what is supported by good science and what is not the article will make this perfectly clear to you.

• Cartner's solar program - good science!
• what happened to it? - Ronny Raygun killed the project.

• John Searls searl generator? - classified science
• what happened to it? - they lock Searl up for energy tax evasion. He admitted he was guilty.

Do I believe it works? Nah I don't believe it works. John was never given a chance to make it work huh? He was in the slammer?

• Pons and Fleishman - unfinished science
• what happened? - they left the US over the bad treatment.

Do I believe it works? No I don't see much of an opportunity for them to make that illusive cold fusion work here? Do you? Free energy? Probably not in a hundred years. It was all discontinued in due-time. Or not important enough at that time. Gdewilde (talk) 23:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

As usual - take a fact, twist it a bit - leave out the exact details and VOILA! A conspiracy.

Pons & Fleishman: OMG! Two great heroes of the free energy movement hounded out of the country to prevent them discovering anything useful!....well, that's how you'd LIKE it to read.

The actual facts are that Pons & Fleishman didn't leave the US over "bad treatment" they left to continue their research in France after Toyota offered them a big fat pay cheque to leave the University of Utah to go and work on cold fusion at IMRA - a highly prestigious private research facility. They arrived in Paris - spent $12,000,000 of Toyota's money on their research - producing NOTHING publishable in return and following a review of their work which showed sloppiness and poor record keeping everywhere - they were justifiably shut down by their sponsors. Meanwhile, MIT found horrible flaws in their original work at Utah and the whole cold-fusion thing pretty much collapsed when it was realised that these two guys had simply screwed up their measurements all along. Fleishman returned to his native England. Pons stayed in France. Throughout all of this, their ORIGINAL research group at the University of Utah continued to do cold-fusion research - but with more careful experiments, they too found that Pons & Fleishman's work was not reproducible. So who suppressed them? Nobody - they returned to Europe for a big pay check and the sloppiness of their work (which is what fooled everyone to believing their claims at the beginning) soon caught up with them. Meanwhile, the work continued in the US just as if they'd never left. When we finally figure out that this amazing and surprising experiment was neither amazing nor surprising - just bad data - almost all scientists drop cold fusion work and go back to trying to save the earth the old-fashioned way. Pons & Fleishman's contribution to modern science was to waste half a decade of some of the smartest minds in the field and to cause a massive cult of scientific illiterates to get their hopes up over something quite utterly bogus.

How is that suppression?

You see when you take the time to actually look at the facts of the case - the knee-jerk conspiracy theorist's claims fall pathetically to the ground. It's not like it's hard to find this stuff out - between Google and Wikipedia, the complete sorry history of that pair of incompetent researchers is laid open. No conspiracy - just human nature at work. SteveBaker (talk) 05:43, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Solid state Generators

Tomas E. Bearden

(Copright-infringing material removed) SteveBaker (talk) 20:33, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

http://www.csicop.org/si/2007-01/fringe.html

There is no need to quote the text of documents for which you provide a perfectly good link - and you MUST NOT copy large chunks out of pages like that into Wikipedia because it is a copyright violation! Anyway - thanks for the link - the report on Bearden's book is simply hilarious. Well worth the price of admission! SteveBaker (talk) 20:33, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

If you have a strong stomach, try searching for "Tom Bearden" at YouTube. The guy loves the sound of his own voice, so there's a whole stack of videos. He has an amazing ability to "name drop" genuine physics terms and the names of famous scientists in a way that sounds quite impressive, but which any physicist would immediately recognize as totally meaningless. Like a bad automobile accident, it's difficult to turn away.Prebys (talk) 21:00, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

TESLA

Nikola Tesla stated, when asked if the principle of his worldwide wireless system of "free energy" would upset the dominant economic system, "It is badly upset already".

The Tesla stuff does belong in this article. Tesla was claimed several methods of free generation of energy. Read up on Tesla work and his patents. J. D. Redding 00:12, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Just did some inline comments on your material, 84.104.135.195. Personally I wouldn’t try putting any of it in. — NRen2k5, Disinfo Agent 002, 15:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC) Thank you for the feedback, I was aware of how the story behind each claimant works out.

The conspiracy theory doesn't require proof for people to believe or disbelieve it. Just disbelieving in it already establishes the conspiracy theory.84.104.135.195 (talk) 22:18, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The existance and notability of conspiracy theories are quite seperate. Titanium Dragon (talk) 01:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

There's something semanticly wrong with suggesting that the wardenclyffe tower had anything to do with the energy from nothing "free energy". it has utterly nothing to do with that; it still was going to take a regular generator to dump energy into the ionosphere, and that is still going to burn fuel and cost money to someone. If whoever coppied the piece of the article had read the rest of it, they would know this. It should be removed. Also, just saying "read up on tesla's patents" is an immature suggetion; which ideas applied to "free energy" in its something for nothing meaning? I dont think there were any. Htomerif (talk) 04:38, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Indeed - various editors keep putting the Tesla content back in, even though it patently has nothing to do with free energy. If Tesla was involved in "free energy" work then cite that by all means, but the current content does not seem relevant. LeContexte (talk) 20:03, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Large Pendulum

A set of edits by Alastair Carnegie suggested that a large pendulum is a perpetual motion machine. he said that once in motion the pendulum could do work but he didn't mention how the pendulum was set in motion. I wonder if he has taken the time to add up the energy input and output of his system. It worth nothing that his axis point heats (as expected) suggesting that the axis suffers from friction and is a source of energy lose in an unusable form.--OMCV (talk) 06:34, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Notability??

This article is turning into a laundry list of everybody who has ever made a claim regarding energy, whether or not a conspiracy was even alleged. If it keeps up in this vain, I'll probably propose deletion, since the notability is extremely questionable. For the time being, I have deleted several that clearly did not belong:

• Wilhelm Reich, since he had nothing to do with energy in this context.
• Valone and Puthoff, since no suppression is alleged.

Prebys (talk) 04:37, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Also the reference to Gary McKinnon - the Wired article - does not have him making claims that he saw any free energy devices when hacking. It actually says that he had that belief before he hacked. When he hacked, he saw what he thought was a UFO - doesn't have him saying he saw blueprints or any evidence of free energy devices. So his inclusion on here seems strange. Why him and not say David Icke ?!? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.30.117.7 (talk) 22:47, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Follow up... I left the Tesla section, because there are claims that had a free energy device (although all the patent drawings exist and it wouldn't have worked anyway), and some of his works were confiscated at his death. The section could probably be shorter, though. BTW, the link to the FBI files is broken.Prebys (talk) 13:28, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I may be missing something, but where are those claims? LeContexte (talk) 19:05, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I was lazy and hadn't read the Tesla section. It only mentions the Wycliffe Tower, which as you point out is NOT free energy. Tesla did in fact patent a nominally free energy device called "Apparatus for the utilization of radiant energy" [26], which I think was supposed to capture the energy of cosmic rays. It would possibly work in a world where cosmic ray fluxes were many orders of magnitude higher than they are, but it would be a moot point, since we'd all be dead. Based on the fact that it's not mentioned (and is pretty silly anyway), I've deleted the Tesla section, too.Prebys (talk) 19:49, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Anyone who studied Tesla would tell you that he spoke/wrote and even built devices that can harvest cosmic rays. He even built a electric car that used such a device. Tesla_electric_car —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.171.101.243 (talk • contribs) 23 September 2009, who subsequently hand-crafted the following "signature": Seb-Gibbs 18:55, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

As I said above, he patented the device to get energy from cosmic rays. The problem is that it would not work, for the reasons described. Plus, since the patent drawings still exist, one cannot legitimately claim "suppression". The car is simply an urban legend, based on an extremely dubious second-hand report. Even if it weren't, the event supposedly took place 12 years before his death, and the alleged suppression of Tesla's work only occurred after he died, so again, not appropriate for this article.Prebys (talk) 22:11, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Prebys, Can I ask for what reasons you say 'It would not work'?

First and foremost, the flux and spectra of cosmic rays are well measured, and the total power is minuscule. At the surface of the Earth, there is roughly one cosmic ray per sq. cm per second, with an average energy on the order of a GeV (I'm not going to dicker about small factors). When you plug that in, the total power is about 1 microwatt/(square meter), or about a billion times less than solar power, so anything that claims to be "powered by cosmic rays" is simply a lie. Second, there's really no way to efficiently capture that energy. The device in Tesla's patent would absorb a tiny fraction of the energy in the form of charge from the lowest energy rays. In fact, it wouldn't even do that, since he conveniently leaves out the fact that cosmic rays are hitting the ground, too, but why slit hairs. So on top of that factor of a billion, add several more powers of ten for efficiency, at least. Finally, even if you don't apply science to the problem, there's the fact that the drawings have existed for over a century and no one has made them work.Prebys (talk) 16:35, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Good Answer! However there does seem to be large quantities of external radio waves Electromagnetic_spectrum, maybe this has something to do with it. Seb-Gibbs 18:55, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

The total power of extraterrestrial EM radiation is also measured in microwatts per square meter. Man-made EM waves are much stronger, but still not enough to draw power from - not to mention that's not really a source of energy, by a long shot. Face it, this stuff is just made up.Prebys (talk) 20:11, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I seemed to have got it wrong, the 'free energy' most of these people are claiming, seems to be coming from the changes in the Van Allen Belt radiation Seb-Gibbs (talk) 11:30, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm... that's a new one on me, and I follow this stuff. Do you have a link? In any event, the Van Allen Belt was discovered 15 years after Tesla died, so it's certainly not relevant to his stuff.Prebys (talk) 16:48, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

The Tesla electric car article points out that it was just a story told by one man and that there’s no evidence that the car ever actually existed. — NRen2k5^(TALK), 22:36, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Information suppression

The constant removal of information from this page seems evident of proof of suppression itself. (Lets see how long this comment stays here). There is a vast more of these cases that is currently listed here. If numerous reference sources is not a enough, then the word 'apparent' should be included in the documentation - but please stop removing sections of this page. thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seb-Gibbs (talk • contribs) 16:17, July 10, 2009

You still haven't provided a credible, much less reliable source for the existance of that person. I suppose there could be a conspiracy to suppress his reported existance, but we'd need evidence of that for inclusion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:22, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't even considered a reliable source about itself, let alone asking others to draw conclusions from observing editors' behavior (which is WP:OR on its face). DMacks (talk) 18:55, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually (in response to DMacks), the google books reference worked for me, but there is still no credible evidence that he ever actually existed, as opposed to being a myth spread by "Free energy" advocates. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:34, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Interesting...if this were worthy of inclusion (i.e., I don't care for now), we'd definitely need an actual biblio for the document (author, title, bookpublisher/journal, etc.) since that's what supports the info, not primarily some archived scan of it. DMacks (talk) 18:53, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory much? — NRen2k5^(TALK), 21:33, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I’ve checked the sources to see if they meet WP:V and WP:RS. With the possible exception of the YouTube video, they’re all self-published fringe science sources.

1. The Kent Anderson book (this link should work) is published by Lulu.com. (Can’t post a link because Wikipedia apparently has them blacklisted!)
2. Nuenergy.org is a fringe science website.
3. The YouTube video might have some weight if it’s really a clip from a reputable TV show, but just citing the YouTube video as such is no good.
4. X-Journals is another fringe science website. — NRen2k5^(TALK), 22:07, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion looks like a good example that information on Professor Alexander Chernetski doesnt want to be aired. Sources look good to me, and where is lulu.com blacklisted? There is also plenty more sources about the professor and the suppression of the technology. Even if were a myth, definitely a known subject of information suppression that should be references on the wiki. To say he may not exist is just prosperous. 13:43, 29 September 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.175.176 (talk)

If you read the Lulu.com website, it's strictly a self-publishing service, so that reference is not up to WP standards. There is no provenance for the YouTube video, but the production standards appear reasonably high, so it probably came from somewhere cite-able if you track it down. Hal Puthoff is an infamous crank, but he's a sincere crank. I don't think he'd say he met someone who didn't exist, so there probably was an Alexander Chernetski. But who was he? this link says Chernetski was a professor at the "Moscow Georgi Plekhanov Institute of the National Economy", which is a respected - but totally non-technical - university in Russia (they don't even have a physics or engineering department). If he had been a scientist, his name would be mentioned for something else on the web. The only references to him on the web are about this, and most are verbatim copies of each other, so they can't really be considered independent. We can safely conclude he was a "professor" or something unrelated. Nevertheless, there are probably enough references about him to mention him in WP, but remember, this article is about suppression. None of these articles claim any suppression. The video mentions that he "died suddenly", but the above reference says he'd been working in the field "for over forty years" in 1990, so he was at least in his mid sixties, and Russians aren't known for their healthy lifestyles. As usual, the "evidence" for suppression is that the device is not on the market. A simpler explanation is that it didn't work.Prebys (talk) 15:06, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Gary McKinnon

I have removed Gary McKinnon because the claims were not supported by the reference. In the article cited, McKinnon claims he hacked the computer site because he had read the Disclosure Project and "knew that governments suppressed antigravity, UFO-related technologies, free energy or what they call zero-point energy.", but in fact only claims to have found pictures of UFO's. If you correct the section to reflect his actual claims, then it clearly doesn't belong in this article.Prebys (talk) 15:22, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

V for Vendetta

These days Conspiracy is the synonym for truth wikkipedia is bullshit for thinking that just by calling anything "A conspiracy" would make it one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.201.218.214 (talk) 10:11, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Delete Gordon Novel

I move to delete the Gordon Novel section as being non-notable. Basis:

• The Gordon Novel article has been deleted, and unlike Bearden, Novel is not associated with any free energy device in particular that would justify his continued inclusion here.
• Novel is a broad spectrum conspiracy theorist who has weighed in on just about every topic I can think of, from JFK to Waco. Free energy forms a very small part of his claims. If he is included under every topic on which he has pontificated, he will be one of the most cited people in WP.
• He is identified as "current", but I can't find anything from him more recent than about 5 years, and his website no longer exists.

That said, can someone come up with a more credible "current" case?Prebys (talk) 17:25, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Perpetual motion and planets

The planets are not an example of perpetual motion. Planets exist within a vacuum of space and are in fact slowing down every year, they meet little to no resistance because in a vacuum there is no air for them to slow. «Golgofrinchian» ∞talk∞ 12:36, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Someone tries to stick that in this or the Perpetual Motion article on a pretty regular basis. It's not even worth discussing.Thanks for reverting it.Prebys (talk) 14:25, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Yep - I agree. However, should the person who keeps sticking that claim into our article in wish to actually understand why his/her addition is incorrect, here is why: Planets exert tidal forces on the star that they orbit and the star exerts tidal forces in return. That produces heat and consumes kinetic/rotational energy that ultimately results in the planet becoming "tidally locked" to the star. Case in point is the planet Mercury which would have been spinning on its axis when the solar system was created - but now spins no more. Our moon is another example - it would once have been spinning but has now stopped with one side always facing the earth. Neither the moon nor Mercury was The moon wasn't remotely "perpetual". But beyond that, even if the planets did spin "perpetually" this isn't a source of "free energy". As soon as you find some way to extract energy, the planet would slow down as the energy was extracted from its store of rotational energy. Tidal energy is an example of that - it's pretty darned cheap - but definitely not "free". We have to be very precise in our terms in this article - so what you wrote was (a) flat out 100% untrue, (b) not at all relevant to "Free energy suppression", (which is the subject of this article), (c) not referenced (per WP:RS) and (d) is gonna get reverted very soon after you stick it back in again. SteveBaker (talk) 01:19, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Quick quibble: Mercury is in a 3:2 resonance and does not always present the same face to the sun, but everything else holds. - 2/0 (cont.) 05:36, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

It's an honest mistake. Those of us of a certain age learned that Mercury always kept the same face toward the sun well after the truth was known; in fact, they made kind of a big deal out of it. I definitely learned it all through grade school, in spite of the fact that the resonance was discovered when I was two. That's the problem with using textbooks instead of Wikipedia. I would bet you a non-trivial fraction of students are still learning it from teachers who are teaching from memory.Prebys (talk) 13:30, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Argh! My bad. I should have done a 'fact check' on that one. I can't blame it on teachers though - maybe the Asimov sci-fi stories. Of course a lot depends on your perspective. You could argue that the moon rotates once in every orbit...but in the case of both the moon and Mercury, an initial random rotation has settled into a rather precise 'resonance' that couldn't have come about by the chance angular momentum of the original materials from which they were formed...so we can be sure that their original rotational speed wasn't "perpetual". SteveBaker (talk) 13:58, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

It's a bit misleading term - "free energy". If using, I would favor "free in human, not physical sense". More scientific term is overunity, which is related to COP (more meaningful) rather than to the efficiency (widely used). The issue is not to bring energy out of nothing, but to convert an available source that is free and unlimited for humanity. A common example is an air conditioning that provides ~3 times more heat/cold than the electricity we're paying for. It doesn't produce it, but brings from/to the street, where it is free and unlimited (in the humanity scale) resource. The same goes for other overunity devices. As to "thermodynamics violation". Energy conservation refers to the closed systems only, but who said we're living in a closed system? Did anybody prove it? Moreover, everyday we're witnessing that we on Earth are NOT living in a closed system - a huge energy flux from sun constantly hits Earth producing life, weather, and all we're used to. Morevover, claiming "planets in vacuum" is not precisely scientific. A vacuum was never proved. Stephen Hawking in his "A Brief History of Time" says that there is a difference of few orders in the mass of universe that we can explain and one that should be according to astronomic observations. Where is this additional mass/energy? Without going into speculations, I would say that it puts a reasonable doubt in vacuum/closed system assumptions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.25.79.130 (talk) 16:48, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Although the solar system has an interplanetary medium it is not very dense and so would take very long timescales to have any impact. Free energy devices aren't about extracting energy from other locations they are about creating energy out of nothing and so are impossible. The existence or not of Dark Energy and Dark Matter has no impact on this discussion. Please note that precise and scientific aren't the same thing, we can approximate the interplanetary medium to be zero for a calculation and still be scientific. Anyway Wikipedia is not the correct place for a discussion. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:13, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Free Energy

'Free Energy' COMMONLY refers to wattage that is coming from a source that appears to give energy for nothing, often the source is just not generally understood science. Why is there a page on suppression but not the term itself? So much information now exists on this subject, videos, books, diagrams, demonstrations, and dedicated websites which explore the subject. (I can find articles 'UFO's, but not one for UFO suppression. UFO is a recognised term, but this also deals with the unknonw) Why does the wiki not document any of the types of free energy, in fact it almost completely ignores the real subject and talks about suppression instead. I also noted the articles makes some of early key players look like a joke. It does seem obvious to me that information on the wiki is being suppressed. Seb-Gibbs (talk) 00:15, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

(Moved to bottom of page - please add all new topics at the bottom.)

What are all of these free sources of energy? Why isn't the entire world using these free sources and thereby ending global warming at a stroke? Simple...They don't exist. Not one of these supposedly free sources of energy actually works - they can't possibly work. The laws of thermodynamics make that impossible. We do actually have an article on Perpetual motion - and that's what all "free energy" scams and misunderstandings would be...if they worked. SteveBaker (talk) 00:38, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I suppose if there -were- technologies being suppressed that wikipedia would have to follow that suppression beacuse of our reliance on reliable sources. But of course that's not a change you're going to see here. Why don't you try hitting the traditional media sources. If you get them to publish it, we can use it here. Or get those pesky mainstream scientists to accept some research on these energy sources, they're so annoying with their 'reproducable results' and 'peer review' . I'd also do a little self examiniation and wonder why you think that a website claiming perpetual motion is possible is proof, and ask why you aren't marrying a scientologist yeti on a UFO. According to the internet they're quite affectionate. Guyonthesubway (talk) 14:03, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Hey! No fair! Scientologists are real...all too real, actually.

Look, there are several possibilities here:

1. If free energy exists and is being suppressed and there is concrete proof of that suppression - then everyone would know about it. Suppression would therefore be ineffective and we'd all have free energy.

Ask yourself, what is concrete proof? There is stuff everywhere, at what point would you believe? After reseached it, watched it, or witnessed it, why do people edit here who no nothing on the subject?

1. If free energy exists and that fact is being effectively suppressed - then there would be nobody talking about the existence of free energy.

People are talk about it.

1. If free energy doesn't exist and no suppression is necessary - then people would be able to talk about it freely and yet there would be no proof of the existence of free energy.

If there was no suppression, why is the vast subject not even have a page on this in the wiki?

Clearly (1) isn't the case - there is no free energy machine that we're all using to run our homes, drive our cars or to power industry. Such a machine would be so valuable, it would be in use everywhere by now. If we don't have this machine, it's either being effectively suppressed - or it doesn't exist.

But claim (2) can't be true either. There are hundreds of websites, books, patents, YouTube videos - all claiming to be about free energy machines. If I Google for "Stan Meyer water car" - I get close to half a million hits! If they are trying to "suppress" this then "big oil" should fire their suppression guys because they are doing an absolutely terrible job!

That leaves us with (3). What we have around us. No proof of free actual, working free energy, lots of people talking about it, patenting it, putting up web sites and YouTube videos - and absolutely no proof that any of those things are being taken down.

Here, if we ignore whether its real or fake, there are hundreds of hits on the subject, but not one page in the wiki, does that not tell you something? Seb-Gibbs (talk) 08:21, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

We have an article about "Free energy suppression" because it's a common meme. We have lots of articles about common memes - whether they happen to be true or false. This one happens to be false.

SteveBaker (talk) 15:53, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Well... as a thought experiment, if I were covering up the McGuffin in question I'd make sure there were lots of fake scientists, scammers and generally unreputable folks in the industry. Then I'd quietly take care of anyone with the real thing. Stan Meyer could be the distraction while Arthur Freeberry is never heard of. Never heard of Arthur? See! its working! From that perspective, writing articles about Meyers is exactly what -they- want! Guyonthesubway (talk) 16:53, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Wow! You're right! There are absolutely no Google hits for "Arthur Freeberry"...it's all true! (I'd better use two thicknesses of tinfoil in my next hat). SteveBaker (talk) 17:02, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Maybe the problem here is that too many people edit this a page who no nothing on the subject. Why is so many user contribution on this page from people who dont know the subject?

Speaking for myself, I have a PhD in physics and have given public lectures on free energy scams, so I think I "no" something about the topic. If they're notable enough, subcategories of "free energy" have been given their own page. Examples include Water-fuelled cars, Motionless electromagnetic generator, or the more general category of Perpetual motion. Beyond that, as SteveBaker says, the unifying theme is the claim of overarching conspiracies to suppress such technologies. That said, a section of this article giving examples of free energy claims and pointing to the other articles might not be a bad idea, if it's properly written.Prebys (talk) 10:01, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi Prebys, seems your the only person who knows something; Yes people have being making scams out of this, but I'm talking about the real work that has been done over the last couple of years. You seem to be only aware of a tiny number of devices. If you are interested in spending some time in traveling to see some real devices I can point you in the right direction. Are you aware of the numerous replicated SEC devices that originated from Dr Stiffler, Here are some more devices that Patrick J. Kelly has documented on the subject. I'm not saying they all work, but you need to look deeper. Its been a while since I last looked at the subject, but heres something I've just found that seems to defy physics, youtube, why dont you replicate it and try to explain it, the plans are available. Seb-Gibbs (talk) 20:39, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

First of all, thanks for that 2287 page(!!) link, but here's a hint: If Tom Bearden is quoted as a "technical expert", any physicist will know he doesn't have to bother to read many of those 2287 pages. That said, it's the most complete documentation of free energy nuts I've ever seen. It's got the usual cast of characters: Bearden, Newman, Meyers, Bedini, Steorn, Sweet, etc, but a whole lot more I've never heard of (and I've made a hobby of this). There's nothing particularly original (the usual coils, magnets, and jars of goo), but the shear magnitude is impressive. As for the video, what exactly did you find so impressive? I saw a light bulb getting brighter and dimmer, narrated by some guy who kept mixing up his units.Prebys (talk) 21:48, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah - YouTube "science" videos are almost universally faked. This one is childishly easy. There are a bunch of wires that disappear off the edge of the white board - who knows where they go? Maybe to a wall socket? That's my guess. Failing that, it would be easy to drill a hole under the base of the lamp and thread wires up from beneath to power the circuit. Then there is a coil - well, the principle of induction is well known - there could be another coil inducing power into it just under the table - how can we possibly know? What's more likely - that the laws of physics have been overturned - or that we have yet another lying, cheating YouTube troll at work?

Certainly we can't write an authoritative encyclopedia entry based around something that's so easy to fake.

If you're convinced that it works - build one. It looks like it has maybe $10 worth of parts and doesn't require any soldering skills. So I'll do you a deal: Build it and send me one. If I find that it does indeed generate "free energy" (ie it doesn't run on some internal power source like a battery that can run down - and it's not getting power from outside the apparatus)- I'll buy it from you for $1,000...a hundred times what it cost you to build it...and I'll promise to work tirelessly to make a Wikipedia article about it. If it doesn't, you pay me $100 for my time and you make a YouTube video where you publicly admit that you knowingly tried to cheat me out of $1,000. How's that for a deal? Put your money where your mouth is - or shut the heck up! SteveBaker (talk) 22:41, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

That PDF is hilarious! (The stoopid thing is protected against copy/paste so it's painful to quote) But I just love the bit where it says that if you can't replicate one of these machines, it doesn't mean that it doesn't work...yeah...great...that's just the way science proceeds! "Hey - I couldn't make it work - but that's OK, I'm convinced anyway". Urgh! It's just full of careful weasel-words and stuffed to the brim with pseudo-science...actually "cargo cult science" is a better term. It's like someone has seen a scientist from a distance and thinks that he can produce scientific results by surrounding himself with scientific-sounding words. If this is your idea of a "reliable source" - you have a LOT to learn about writing an encyclopedia! 23:24, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm obviously not going to spend a lot of time reading it, but the parts I've skimmed through are priceless. In 5 minutes, I found volts used as a unit of power, a unit of energy, and a unit of "electromagnetic flux".Prebys (talk) 04:05, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

It's certainly a waste of time to read the entire thing - but it exhibits all of the classic "physics-101" misunderstandings. Confusing "force" and "energy" is perhaps the most egregious. It exhibits the classic free-energy-nut "gut feel" that because permanent magnets exert a force that never "runs down", it must be possible to extract energy perpetually...if only you could figure out the right way to do it! He gushes at length about the variations on the old (and very busted!) idea of using a magnet to pull a steel ball up a ramp - which then falls off the end of the ramp, rolls down to the bottom - only to be pulled back up by the magnet! Classic free-energy bullshit - simultaneously hilarious and kinda sad. Anyway - this document might be of interest at the Perpetual motion article - but it is living proof of how "free energy" ideas aren't being suppressed. I've had the document on my PC for over 12 hours now - and no sign of black helicopters or "big oil" hitmen yet. SteveBaker (talk) 12:06, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, for all the whining about "suppression", this document is choc-a-bloc full of complete mechanical drawings and circuit diagrams - everything you need to put these things together. Most are quite old, some over 100 years, so there's been plenty of time to make them work. With all that time and information, if you can't get them to work, you really can't blame Big Brother, or Big Oil, or even Mr. Big from "Sex in the City". It is kind of sad. Mr. Kelly is probably not a stupid guy. It looks like he spent years putting this stuff together. No telling what he might have accomplished if he'd done something useful. That said, I'm debating whether this might be a reasonable "further reading" for the article, strictly as a "one stop shopping" example of claims.Prebys (talk) 15:07, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Well - I don't know. In as much as it's clearly a labor of love - and obviously represents a lot of diligent effort - it's a nice document - and linking to it in some way seems useful. The fact that it also has near fatal 'bullshit-density' simply goes with the subject matter it's trying to cover. But as far as I can tell, it doesn't actually say anything on the topic of free energy suppression - and that's a problem. Reading it wouldn't give our readership any additional insight into the topic of our article...except that, as an artifact that's freely available on the Internet, it represents some kind of concrete proof that free energy ideas are not being suppressed. So it doesn't really work as "Further Reading" because reading it doesn't help you to understand our topic.

It would make more sense to attach it as further reading to the perpetual motion article - although it might then be construed as violating WP:ELPOV.

What might be neat would be to add a section to the main body of this article that talks about evidence that free energy schemes are not being suppressed - and use this super-comprehensive/freely-available document as a reference for that statement. Since it would only have to stand as proof of it's own existence, it is a reliable source, regardless of the validity or credibility of the content. SteveBaker (talk) 16:58, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

It could even simply support a sentence like "There have been numerous claims of free energy devices over the last century, none of which is currently in use". It doesn't cite most claims within the paper, but there's a long list of citations at the end. Again, since we're merely citing claims, I believe (as bad as it is) it qualifies as a WP:RS. Hopefully, most people will reach the obviously conclusion that these devices simply don't work. Those that conclude "Wow, the suppression is even bigger than I thought" were probably beyond hope from the beginning.Prebys (talk) 18:38, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

the point of the pdf was to point out the subject is vast, when the wiki hardly recognises that the subject exists. Seb-Gibbs (talk) 19:15, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, except that it doesnt in any way point out the subject is vast. It shows that one guy can write a long PDF. I could do that. If it wanted to. I just don't. Guyonthesubway (talk) 20:01, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Its obviously not the knowledge of one man. Seb-Gibbs (talk) 20:20, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Dude, check yourself. A crappy youtube video and 2300 pages of some obsessed dude's cut and paste is widely ignored by folks far smarter than me. There's a reason. Its hokum. I'd LOVE to have free energy. Dammit, I want a flying car too!! But if I believe that crappy video then I have to believe in UFOs, Werewolves, and light sabers. They're all there, in far more convincing videos. Lots of pages in a PDF don't make anything but crying trees if you print it. I reiterate the 'build the damn thing' challenge. If you can build the thing in the video, I'll give you 5 grand for it. I'll make millions. I suspect you could even enter that thing in the Randi million dollar challenge. Win the million, and then sell it to me and make a $1,005,500! oh, and to the 'no nothings'[sic] here DON'T FEED THE TROLL Guyonthesubway (talk) 00:10, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Let me get this straight...you're outbidding me for this non-existant, non-functioning device? Darn! SteveBaker (talk) 13:26, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

The 'free energy' subject exists, whether nonsense, fact or fiction, it is a big thing, talked about by crowds of people. For some reason the wiki can only list a page on a 'free energy suppression' which IS heavily suppressed right here by folk like you. Even if it is 'troll', Why is so many people here on this page who are interested at keeping the information on the wiki about this to the minimum. Why is this? UFOs is a good subject to compare this with, as its not proven, doesnt make sense, yet there is documentation of events and I'm sure there is page on about UFOs here on the wiki. (ps. to the previous comments made, I do not believe in scientology. scientology has many sides to it, but largely its a complete scam) Seb-Gibbs (talk) 10:35, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

If you feel strongly about a Free Energy page, you are perfectly capable of creating one. I don't personally have a strong opinion one way or the other about the existence of such a page per se, but it has to be more than a clearing house for random crazy claims or it will get deleted. Your own source shows that there have been hundreds of claims, dating back to at least the 19th century. The fact that none of them are on the store shelves means either none of them work (the view of myself and the vast majority of scientists) or there is a massive conspiracy to cover them up. The arguments why they don't work are covered in the perpetual motion page, and this page addresses the other argument.Prebys (talk) 12:44, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

The problem with an article on free energy is that there aren't any reliable sources that talk about actual, for real free energy machines. So if you're expecting there to be a page that would carefully (gorgeously, lavishly, lovingly) describe each one of these crazy contraptions then you're very much mistaken. The page would be required (by Wikipedia editing guidelines) to discuss scientific matters (which is all of this stuff) using only information from reliable sources...meaning peer-reviewed papers in respected scientific journals...and not to give undue weight to fringe theories. So it'll be exceedingly difficult to find very much that you can say on the subject. Worse still - what could you call that page? You can't call it Free energy - because that's already a disambiguation page. Free energy (pseudoscience) would work for me...but I imagine that if you believe in this crap, you're going to want something less descriptive. Honestly, the "Perpetual motion" page is already the very most you could hope for.

Is this "free energy suppression"? Maybe - but it's the rules by which this website is constructed - and we're not about to change that for the free energy community any more than we are for the Ufology/homeopathy/astrology/time cube/holocaust denial/creation science/Flat Earth theory/Dowsing/Indigo children crazies. We construct our editing guidelines to avoid the encyclopedia becoming infested with junk science - and free energy falls right into that category. SteveBaker (talk) 13:26, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Wow, never heard of Indigo children before. Amazing what you pick up on Wikipedia.Prebys (talk) 15:24, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah - it's an especially annoying pseudo-sciencey thing. People (typically aging hippies) believe their kids are "special" - nothing new about that - but then they claim that they have this invisible purple "aura" and then start to pile on increasingly crazy claims about these (kinda-ordinary) children. When you meet someone who claims that - it's very hard to deal with. Truly, you can hurt your head with some of the Category:Pseudoscience stuff that's out there. SteveBaker (talk) 18:53, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

There is a page on perpetual motion machines. The two are functionally equivalent. Someone toss a link to it with an explanatory sentence onto the Free energy disambiguation page, and call it a day. TallNapoleon (talk) 12:15, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree. SteveBaker (talk) 13:26, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I have added Seb-Gibbs' link as an example of the many claims of free energy. Although the document definitely NOT a WP:RS for the factuality of any of the claims, I think it's reasonable evidence for the existence of the claims. This seemed like an acceptable alternative to a zillion individual links.Prebys (talk) 14:36, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Thomas Henry Moray

That stuff about Thomas Henry Moray doesn't really make sense. It has a line claiming he was shot at, with no citation, which is followed by a completely non-sequitur line and citation about "The Sun Betrayed". These two sentences were taken verbatim from his WP article, which appears to be trying to build a "Free Energy Suppression" section of its own. If I don't hear any objection, I'm going to remove this section until someone finds some proper documentation.Prebys (talk) 11:54, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

If the ref is good in his article, I'd suggest leaving it. The solar stuff can certainly go. Guyonthesubway (talk) 14:59, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

That's the point, the ref about the shooting points to "The Sun Betrayed". If you take that away, there's nothing supporting the shooting claim, unless it's in the book. I don't have the book and don't really have any interest in getting it. For now, I'll cut the solar stuff and leave a "citation needed" on the other, but in the end this guy seems below our admittedly very low bar.Prebys (talk) 19:12, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

The book was written by "Moray B. King"; that is, an author whose first name is the same as the subject's last name. That seems a bit much to be a coincidence. "King" has no credentials I can find, and has written two other books on "Zero point energy", all published by "Adventures Unlimited Press", which appears to be a self-publishing site for fringe topics. My opinion is that this does not rise to the level of WP:RS and this entry (as well as the article on Moray himself) should be deleted.Prebys (talk) 19:32, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

[[27]] google books search reveals quite a few references to him. Several mention the shooting incident. I'm going to assume the book cited has the same, unless you feel like seraching it out. Perhaps we shoudl resource to a better book? Got a favorite? Guyonthesubway (talk) 20:09, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Perusing the list, there is no "better" book; these are a bunch of kook books that simply crib from each other. Nevertheless, it's not worth the fight. If we delete the entry, we'll be accused of being "part of the conspiracy".Prebys (talk) 14:30, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I objected to deletion, these events have been documented quite well, just not very well on the wiki. Seb-Gibbs (talk) 20:52, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I disagree that repeating the same hearsay multiple times constitutes "documentation"; nevertheless, I accept that deleting this content is probably more trouble than it's worth.Prebys (talk) 21:17, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

If there is no source to back these claims why have it? IRWolfie- (talk) 18:24, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm tempted to side with IRWolfie - if we can't source it properly, why's it in an encyclopædia aricle? - but perhaps a rephrase could be a compromise; rephrase it along the lines of "According to..." bobrayner (talk) 19:48, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

We don't seem to have reliable sources to say if he claims it! IRWolfie- (talk) 20:01, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I shortened the section and took out the completely non-sequitur reference to "The Sun Betrayed". The general feeling is that the story about the shooting is "probably" in the Moray King book which is mentioned in the Thomas Moray article, but since I haven't read the book and have no intention of ever reading it, I left it as "citation needed" until someone else can confirm it. Since I originally moved to delete the whole entry, I won't cry if that's your decision.Prebys (talk) 20:22, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I've let a link to it in the see also section since it's related, although you can delete that if you think it makes sense to do so. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:00, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Examples section

I changed the name from "Historic cases" to "Examples" because the former implied the list was somehow complete. Certainly, more "inventors" have claimed suppression than those listed, but I don't personally have any interest in cataloging them all, so I thought this was a reasonable compromise.Prebys (talk) 20:28, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I added Bearden to the examples section, because it was getting a little thin. Plus, talking about free energy conspiracy theories without mentioning Bearden is like talking about classical music without mentioning Beethoven.Prebys (talk) 15:08, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

References

Please leave this section at the bottom of the talk page. If you see something below it, please move it.

Some the reference in the article needs to be cleaned up (currently 14,27 seem invalid) 86.145.175.176 (talk) 17:08, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Supression of information on wikipedia, SOPA and corrupt wikiadmins.

I have recently started an article claims of free energy to list these devices and compare their status.

24 hours later Wikipedia was shoutdown due to the SOPA censorship act of the US FED. 2 days later I have found that an admin called User_talk:Fastily have DELETED the entre article, without warning or debate. his reasoning is that the two should've merged. yet, now they can't since all information have been lost. I urge you to call upon this rogue admin to address this issue.

If even the article claiming that infromation has been suppressed is suppressed, while the entire wikipedia site is down to protest internet censorship...This entire project is at shame. damn shame.--Namaste@^? 19:54, 20 January 2012 (UTC)