• Members of the previous forum can retrieve their temporary password here, (login and check your PM).

Quick Question ~ Free Energy?

Migrated topic.
Another Rube

Another Rube

Nublet will do.
Not really related to dmt, but I was hoping that -someone- in here might be able to tell me if Cold Electricity is the real deal. I've done a lot of snooping around on the internet, and apart from a certain large free energy forum whose language is waaaay over my head, and a pdf book that smells suspiciously like a ct, I can't find an iota of respectably packaged information! So, please, anyone, just give me a quick no or yes with a link, I'd really appreciate it.

Free electricity, sounds like a dream!
 
You know what they say, 'there's no free lunch' :D

Free energy is a hoax, energy isnt created from nothing. You need to transform energy from one form into another useful one (for example potential/kinetic energy from water movement/gravity in rivers turned into electric in hydroelectric powerplants, etc)
 
Yeah, I totally dig that, lol.

But Cold Electricity is something different, according what little I've read about it. I mean, normally I would just dismiss it straight away, but as far as I understand it (not very, believe me) it is a way of using a closed circuit of, literally, cold electricity, which means that the power isn't lost at such an enormous rate. Apparently Tesla discovered some crazy way of splitting positive charges or something, when the electrons go back to their lower orbit they act differently, or, given the only option to release into the air, they spike, because air needs a higher action potential. I'm only parroting a little of what I barely understand. But from what I gather, Tesla's different method of not generating electricity, but kind of recycling it, uses a different spectrum of electricity. We're told in high school that negative energy is nill, but a bunch of people either believe otherwise, or are just spreading bs into the cyber world. I don't know, it's just so confusing because I can't find any skeptics or anything online!

Can I post a link to the forum on here? It's not a forum whose interests conflict with DMT-Nexus so I imagine it shouldn't be a problem.

[edit]
It's really fascinating stuff and I think that it deserves a respectable mention on this forum, at least until we can find quality evidence to suggest otherwise.

I'll just put the post in and if I can stick the link up let me know.

Cold electricity is TRUE electricity.
It is the real power without electron flow.
This type of electricity was shown to us by Mr.Tesla over 100 years ago.

The electrons are simply "dragged" by this Cold electricity flow and this creates what we see as resistance.
And this is also the reason why conventional electricity shows up on our meters.
We can measure resistance, but True Cold electricity does not show up on our meters, because there is no electron flow, yet it can burn a filament bulb on one wire.

In conventional electricity, the dragging electrons , create the magnetic field and, these two go hand in hand.
This is the reason why we won't find any OU in magnetics.
The magnetic fields are caused by the dragging electrons, which in turn are a secondary effect of this primary True Cold Electricity flow.
You can't tap something secondary without the primary part that caused it...

For some people, all this is well understood, but for the most part, people are still thinking electricity is electron flow and even our teachers tell us it is.

Marco
Click to expand...

[edit2]
I've decided to look into this a lot more deeply, my apologies for such sloppy posting D:
 
^^
The above sounds like typical pseudoscience, sorry total bullshit I should say. Or I stopper paying too much attention when the guy mentioned the "TRUE cold electricity" without explaining what does he mean by "cold electricity" and how does this differ from "FALSE cold electricity".

I'd stray away unless you can provide a more authoritative explanation or description. The Marcus dude who authored the above quote does seem to lack in the explanation department, most likely because his comprehension department is still under construction.

And yes, sure you can post links to other fora or whatever!
 
We live in a Capitalist/consumerist society where someone with a marketable and desirable new idea is guaranteed to make lots of money (think Bill Gates). The easiest way to determine if any scientific/engineering claim is true is to ask yourself a very simple question: “Is anyone making money off of this technology?” If the answer is no, then you can be fairly certain it’s bogus.
 
gibran2 said:
We live in a Capitalist/consumerist society where someone with a marketable and desirable new idea is guaranteed to make lots of money (think Bill Gates). The easiest way to determine if any scientific/engineering claim is true is to ask yourself a very simple question: “Is anyone making money off of this technology?” If the answer is no, then you can be fairly certain it’s bogus.
Click to expand...
That's a very interesting point!

I thought of that too, but then I came across this
The first book of which suggests to me that it's not actually corporately abusable! Now, at risk of sounding like a conspiracy theorist (I can honestly say that I've never ever given a toss about aliens or 7/11 conspiracies or any of what can be typically labelled a ct), the whole situation kind of makes sense, of course it wouldn't be commonly known if the first electricity companies had already formed and were protecting their assets, companies that were already well founded when Tesla made is discoveries. I mean, a technology that vastly undercuts all forms of controlled electricity supply? @_@

But I really don't like the direction this post is heading, so I'll try to stamp it now by asking that any more posters in this thread try and do so with evidence or quality resources, rather than speculation.
 
Another Rube said:
gibran2 said:
We live in a Capitalist/consumerist society where someone with a marketable and desirable new idea is guaranteed to make lots of money (think Bill Gates). The easiest way to determine if any scientific/engineering claim is true is to ask yourself a very simple question: “Is anyone making money off of this technology?” If the answer is no, then you can be fairly certain it’s bogus.
Click to expand...
That's a very interesting point!

I thought of that too, but then I came across this
The first book of which suggests to me that it's not actually corporately abusable! Now, at risk of sounding like a conspiracy theorist (I can honestly say that I've never ever given a toss about aliens or 7/11 conspiracies or any of what can be typically labelled a ct), the whole situation kind of makes sense, of course it wouldn't be commonly known if the first electricity companies had already formed and were protecting their assets, companies that were already well founded when Tesla made is discoveries. I mean, a technology that vastly undercuts all forms of controlled electricity supply? @_@

But I really don't like the direction this post is heading, so I'll try to stamp it now by asking that any more posters in this thread try and do so with evidence or quality resources, rather than speculation.
Click to expand...
The question isn’t “Is the technology corporately abusable?”, but rather “Can someone make money off of this technology?”.

If any technology is useful, then money can be made developing and marketing the technology. If there is money to be made somewhere, there is always someone who will work very hard to be the one making the money.
 
gibran2 said:
The question isn’t “Is the technology corporately abusable?”, but rather “Can someone make money off of this technology?”.

If any technology is useful, then money can be made developing and marketing the technology. If there is money to be made somewhere, there is always someone who will work very hard to be the one making the money.
Click to expand...
I guess so (though, the afraid and imaginative child in me certainly suggests that the situation is a perfect breeding ground for foul play).
I'm going to try and learn about it over the next few days and come back later when I'm more prepared / if I haven't been told off for fear mongering.
:lol:

[edit]
Anyone who's interested, check out this book review, it's... quite informative.

Book Review Breakthrough Power by Jeane Manning and Joel Garbon

INFINITE ENERGY is the international magazine for Cold Fusion and New Energy Technologies. It is a technical magazine with outreach to the general public, providing material of interest to all people. It includes some highly technical papers and patents. It also includes non-technical articles...
www.infinite-energy.com
But the founder of the website was into cold fusion before the current project so.. =/ ?
 
The point I’ve been trying to make is about how we can think critically about fantastic scientific and technological claims. Few if any of us here on the Nexus have a sufficient background in physics to scientifically refute such claims.

However, most of us have common sense and a reasonable knowledge of how people behave. So although we can’t refute technological claims on a scientific basis, we can easily refute them on a psychological/sociological basis.

When people are given an opportunity to make large sums of money, most people will take advantage of that opportunity. A new technology – any new technology – that would revolutionize some aspect of our lives will, because of the capitalistic nature of our society, allow those who exploit the technology (develop it, market it, etc.) to make large sums of money. It’s therefore reasonable to assume that as soon as a new technology becomes marketable, someone will market it.

There’s the argument that current technology companies will work to suppress the new technology, but this is rarely if ever successful. The countless people who stand to make money are just too motivated to allow it to be suppressed. A good example is cell phone technology. Landline telecommunications companies may have, at one time, felt very threatened by emerging cell phone technology. Yet there was nothing they could do to stop it, so most of them joined in.

So what do proponents of “free energy” technology have to show? They make money by selling books and hosting seminars. You don’t become a billionaire by selling a book and giving a few talks once in a while. If this technology were real, there would be many startup companies and large established companies racing each other to bring it to market. Why isn’t this happening?

We all want a limitless, inexpensive (or free), clean source of energy. So much harm to our environment would be eliminated. The air would be clean again! It makes us feel good to believe that technology to give us this is just around the corner, and so we keep believing it. But ask yourself – do you believe in the “magical” technology because it’s real, or because it makes you feel good?
 
^ what he said

+ we do have experts that can refute problems on a scientific basis, just wait and one of them might pop up soon enough :)

Though usually these experts will rather make effort in refuting something that is interesting and worth refuting, if its clearly pseudo-science they might not be bothered.
 
I cannot stress enough how much I absolutely agree with you, you put into elegant words my mumbled, jumbled thoughts rather perfectly, but still, I stand steadfast. I have read about a quarter of a book I found online, published in 2002, Harnessing the Wheelwork of Nature. You can find it online. Well so far the book seems to take a very straightforward approach to the idea of cold power and wireless transmission of electricity. So far it seems to be a decent source of information, perhaps the best I've come across.

Here is an article about an MIT experiment which uses the exact technology that Tesla created over a hundred years ago, though the fSc$ing! writers of the article don't even bother to mention Tesla, only deceptively putting something in about how in the past there was no such demand and thus no reason to look into the technology that J P Morgan, the richest guy in the world, actually gave Tesla $200,000 to build.
web.mit.edu

Goodbye wires!

MIT team experimentally demonstrates wireless power transfer, potentially useful for powering laptops, cell phones without cords
web.mit.edu web.mit.edu

The more I look into this, the less it looks like a 'conspiracy theory' and an actual hard set of historical events. Obviously I'm not professional on the matter, hell I dropped out of high school, let alone physics, but I think that if there is a possibility that this is the real deal, which I honestly do, then people should know and spread the information. Please, I emplore you, just read this book, do a little snooping around for yourself, and tell me what you think.

I still can't find a single decent, scientific skeptic or critique of the technology! That's what's boggling my mind! I can admit that cold fusion is a dead end, because that's what so much evidence points to. But a prolific inventor / genius such as Tesla should have had -all- of his work embedded into the minds of electro-physicists along with all the usual suspects, Watts and the rest of them. I can't envision a sound, logical reason for the lack of criticism, Tesla was a reputed scientist, and the -many- inventions of his that we use today should be adequate proof that he wasn't a crackpot pathological scientist! I swear! lol

This is the only video I have so far found which isn't full of gimmicky bs.

If his wireless electricity transfer isn't rubbish, then the cold electricity might also not be.

Please, just read the book. You can find a heap of downloads on google, "harnessing the wheelwork of nature pdf"

I beg you, I wouldn't risk my reputation on this site on something I didn't think was worth it. And I'm not bad at thinking!
 
Even if you could generate all the energy in a closed system, I assume the majority of it would be lost as you transitioned it towards something useable like say powering a car or home.


Nothing is a closed system anyway.
 
proto-pax said:
Even if you could generate all the energy in a closed system, I assume the majority of it would be lost as you transitioned it towards something useable like say powering a car or home.


Nothing is a closed system anyway.
Click to expand...
Absolutely correct!
 
Usually, at least in my experience, I am MORE worried when I can't find a skeptic to go with an idea. It usually means it wasn't worth anybody's time to really go out and disprove.
 
proto-pax said:
Even if you could generate all the energy in a closed system, I assume the majority of it would be lost as you transitioned it towards something useable like say powering a car or home.


Nothing is a closed system anyway.
Click to expand...

This.

Also, nothing is more efficient than a Carnot engine, there is a fundamental limit based on energy usage even on 100% efficient machines.

However creation of energy from the vacuum sea should be possible. It would require a method to expand space itself and collapse it back in on itself in such a way that the negative energy is dissipated perfectly yet usefully. Where would you send this energy though?
 
embracethevoid said:
However creation of energy from the vacuum sea should be possible. It would require a method to expand space itself and collapse it back in on itself in such a way that the negative energy is dissipated perfectly yet usefully. Where would you send this energy though?
Click to expand...
I think this is the problem with much pseudoscience: it often has a basis in real science, like in this case vacuüm energy.

This is the problem: vacuum energy is the lowest energy state. The difference between the lowest energy state and higher energy states is smaller than the difference between zero energy and the lowest state.
So there is an awfull lot of energy stored within the vacuüm.

In order to tap it though, you would have to have an energy state that is lower than the lowest state, wich isn't possible. And anything you can think of to dodge this problem, even the most advanced ideas that can only exist in an ideal purely theoretical world, and i think you would easily see this if you think about it for a second, will always require at least the same amount of energy that you could win.
And the closed system comment shows that you would therefore always lose energy.

I can see tesla's fascination. But even serious scientists can fall for great but impossible ideas if they have a firm basis in real science. How many scientists today are working on a grand unified theory while there, even theoretically speaking, can never be such a thing.
 
embracethevoid said:
Also, nothing is more efficient than a Carnot engine, there is a fundamental limit based on energy usage even on 100% efficient machines.
Click to expand...

there is no such thing as a 100% efficient machine, ever. 'low-quality' energy is always dispersed to the universe, usually in the form of heat.

creation of energy
Click to expand...

1st Law: energy cannot be created.. .
 
Back
Top Bottom