Free Energy: WikiLies

Wild Wiki Lies, Free Energy and bad, bad science 


Those who’s thinking is unbiased see science as being an authoritarian organisation of those who snap to attention when given the opportunity to tell us that something is impossible. However, there can be no doubt that the ocean of possibilities is vast, endless and unlimited. But there seem to be no limits imposed on stupidity disguised as scepticism, allowed to run free and unhindered in science, education and by Wikipedia editors.

Take Wikipedia’s ‘Free Energy’ page as an example of suppression of a resource badly needed by humankind but sadly it is pseudo debunked by Wiki wimps:

Wiki says: “In economics:
Free Energy
“Energy from sources that do not require an input which has to be paid for, (usually a sub-set of renewable energy).”

[Note: No mention of energy research – zero scientific research for new sources of energy]

Wiki in Pseudoscience:
Free energy device, “a hypothetical perpetual motion device that creates energy, thereby contradicting the laws of thermodynamics”

[Note: Perpetual motion is not the same as free energy. Free energy research does not attempt to create energy from nothing as this would be impossible. The very mention of pseudoscience tells of extreme bias as it assumes that only academic scientists are able to do energy research – something they are not doing or there would be no problem.
Pseudoscience is anything that academic science finds embarrassing or lacking in research]

Wiki In popular culture:
Free energy suppression, “a conspiracy theory that advanced energy technologies are being suppressed by governments and/or special interest groups”

[Note: A conspiracy theory becomes untrue as soon as the word conspiracy is attached to the word theory. The word suppression automatically becomes the phrase conspiracy theory.
A scientific theory on the other hand, becomes true if it does not conflict with other theories that themselves have become true because they did not conflict with other theories.]

As Wiki points out, Free is a word (in this context), that means you don’t pay for it and there are endless examples of cost-free energy. The Sun gives us free energy, cosmic rays are a source of free energy, wood is a source of free energy, a dam gives us free energy after its initial building cost. If you steal energy from the grid it’s free energy.

There used to be crystal radios, self winding watches and the telegraph that worked with free telluric energy originating in the earth beneath our feet; they required no paid-for energy (FREE). Yes, telluric electricity is free energy that is able to do useful work. Also Earth batteries and Ram pumps are *free energy devices*, realities that can be found on (would you believe) Wiki. None of this is pseudoscience or popular culture, it’s fact!
See: physics-of-the-fuelless-generator-tesla

Free Energy Ram Pump Cycle

Wiki lists “Water hammer”, “Cavitation” and “Ram Pump” on separate pages even though they are part of, or driven by. the same effect. Are they afraid that readers will spot the free energy device that they call “perpetual motion”?  This may be a conspiracy!

Working Homemade Ram Pump
Homemade ram Pump
Williamson Hi Flo Rampumps
See Cavitation heater:

Here we have Wiki describing a free energy device. “conspiracy theory”?:
“Hydraulic ram: A hydraulic ram, or hydram, is a cyclic water pump powered by hydropower. It takes in water at one “hydraulic head”, pressure and flow rate, and outputs water at a higher hydraulic head and lower flow rate. The device uses the water hammer principle to develop pressure that allows a portion of the input water that powers the pump to be lifted to a point higher than where the water originally started. For free! The hydraulic ram is sometimes used in remote areas, where there is both a source of low-head hydropower and a need for pumping water to a destination higher in elevation than the source. In this situation, the ram is often useful, since it requires no outside source of power other than the kinetic energy of flowing water.” (It runs forever for free)

ShockWave Power (cavitation)
Hydro Dynamics, Inc.
Telephone 706-234-4111
Fax 706-234-0702
During the past several years of intensive research, Hydro Dynamics has studied the production of shock waves for the purpose of transforming fluids. Early prototypes, consisting of a rotor spinning inside a housing, were able to significantly increase the temperature of water flowing through the device. This result indicated that it was possible to harness the power of cavitation. This controlled cavitation generates shock waves, which convert mechanical energy into heat energy.

Cribbed from Bill Beaty @
From: (Marshall Dudley)
Subject: Another theory for Griggs device
Date: Sat, 17 Dec 1994 12:14 -0500 (EST)

In a previous post I hinted at another possibility of what may be happening in the Griggs device when I mentioned “non-linearities in the steam table” as one of several things that should be looked at. Since I did not get any bites on that, let me outline a discussion I had with a scientist from Oak Ridge National Labs about the Griggs device several months ago. This discussion is off the record, and most likely will not be collaborated, just as some of the results of their CF (cold fusion) cell experiments are.

griggs3I had an occasion to meet with this person and begun describing the Griggs device to him. After telling him how it worked I ended it with, “and it is reported to produce more steam or hot water than the input power should produce”. His response was “that’s not surprising”. I was almost floored.

He then told me that is a fairly well known fact among some researchers that the published steam tables are wrong. The original team which made up the steam tables found that toward the extremes (high pressure high temperature and low pressure and temperature) there are unexplained non-linearities. Since these non-linearities could not be explained, and were shown to not obey the conservation of energy, they fudged the tables to get rid of the non-linearities. They had assumed that there must be an error in their measurements or equipment since it did not jive with theory. Since then others have found the same thing, but none of them will stick their neck out to declare that steam tables which have been in use for decades are wrong, especially since there seems to be no theory to explain these non-linearities. Anyway, he said that if you go through a cycle of vaporization at one pressure and condensation at a higher pressure and temperature, when you get back to the original temperature and pressure the “corrected” steam table does not close. That is to say, according to the measurements there is steam left over which should not be there, and by conservation of energy cannot be there. Anyway, he said that it seems that such a device such as Griggs would enhance this non-linearity effect and therefore produce more energy than is supplied. He does not have the foggiest idea where the excess energy could come from, but simply that given what he knows about the non-linearities in the (corrected) steam tables, that seems like a good place to start looking. I find the idea intriguing, but as with so many other theories, it leaves one with as many questions as it gives answers.
See:Griggs Sci steam tables not to plan

Free Electrical Energy
Now let’s examine another possibility; that a small amount of “Paid-For” energy is used to unleash a larger amount of some other form of energy; again we have free energy. This of course comes up-against “the laws of thermodynamics”, that say ‘you cannot get more out than you put in’. But you’re not doing that, you are simply opening a door to more energy, not creating more energy. And this just happens to be what the free energy researchers have been doing for the past hundred years or more, in perfect conformity to the first law of thermodynamics and no perpetual motion.

Where does all that energy come from? Science and Wiki tells us it does not exist. Maybe a scientist can work out the voltage required to generate such a spark?

The sad lack of knowledge on the subject of electrical discharge can be clearly seen on this Wiki/Talk page where Wiki editors discuss the various pages:
Quote: “The trouble is that not all electrical breakdowns are just due to electroSTATIC discharges. Most(?) in fact occur within the electricity transmission network where current electricity flows (ie ac @ 50/60 Hz).” (Note: the question mark above is there because the “expert” is unsure of electrical theory where the word STATIC is concerned.)
The giant spark (pictured) was generated within the transmission line/sub station system and cannot be labled under the heading “static electricity” as it was flowing in  the system. The question not answered is whence came the obviously, millions of volts? Not from the generators.

Eric Dollard

Eric P Dollard
Science is very good at stating the obvious and with the exception of bankers who violate all known laws, everyone else knows that you can’t get something from nothing. In the following video link Eric Dollard reads from some old and hard to find books from around the turn of the nineteenth century. He reads: that at this time a conference was held by the leading electrical engineers and scientists of the day. He tells of how they were all in accord that a free energy device was imminent, that such a device could be built before the end of the year. They were aware of the huge destructive currents generated in transmission lines that did not originate at the the generator. Free energy was in such abundance that it was destroying transmission lines and sub-stations, a situation that continues today.
Video: Eric Dollard – Origin of Energy Synthesis

scientism6Wiki editors know nothing of this because they know nothing of science history or thirty metre sparks. They have been told by science that such energy does not exist. It’s interesting that science has an opinion, in fact it gives definitive ‘no’ to a subject it has not studied in a hundred years. If the reader clicks “Physics” and “The study of electricity and magnetism” only James Clerk Maxwell is mentioned – are we to assume that no one did anything else? Well no, there were many others but on the subject of electricity, science and therefore Wiki like to keep them a secret.

The Wiki editors have denied the so-called “conspiracy theory” that at the time of the above mentioned destruction of electrical equipment, the financiers withdrew all funding for electrical research. This was because the destructive energy would cost them a boat-load of money in lost profits had it been tamed. All of this is confirmed in Nikola Tesla’s history, but it also applied to all scientists. No more funding!?… We now begin to see why  the policy of education is to make our kids into lamebrains before becoming scientists, electrical engineers, sceptics and Wikipedia editors. The people are not supposed to know.

Gerard Morin

Gerard Morin
Here we have a video link  ‘A new understanding, of new Energy (results) Gerard Morin.’    where he gives a demonstration of ‘cold electricity’ of the kind used in free energy devices. He actually measures the minus temperature. It caught my interest because I did a very similar experiment, more by accident than design. The short story is that its radiation destroyed my computer that was sitting on the desk beside it. It destroyed the hard drive, the optical drive, and the mainboard. The only thing that functioned was the processor. The part that needs explanation because the sceptics and the scientists will say it was static’, is that the whole thing was driven by a small six volt charger with a few milliamps output. The only modification, that I removed the smoothing capacitors from the charger to give a DC pulse output, not unlike the Tesla method.

Bedinis Negative Resistor Process in a Battery

perpetualCompare Wiki on Perpetual motion: “…is motion of bodies that continues indefinitely. This is impossible because of friction and other energy-dissipating processes. A perpetual motion machine is a hypothetical machine that can do work indefinitely without an energy source. This kind of machine is impossible, as it would violate the first or second law of thermodynamics.   If the Wiki editors did some genuine research they would find that perpetual motion has been used by bankers for centuries – they call it Fractional Banking.

Perpetual motion is a strawman used to divert attention away from and to ridicule any real energy research. Only scientists take perpetual motion seriously these days.  See physics professor Donald Simanek’s  “The Museum of Unworkable Devices”
Perpetual motion gives rise to a kind of hysteria among scientists, skeptics, Wiki editors and other medieval monks who use perpetual motion as a subterfuge and falsely accuse free energy researchers of the most base ignorance.

Wiki: The first law of thermodynamics:
is a version of the law of conservation of energy, adapted for thermodynamic systems. The law of conservation of energy states that the total energy of an isolated system is constant; energy can be transformed from one form to another, but cannot be created or destroyed. The first law is often formulated by stating that the change in the internal energy of a closed system is equal to the amount of heat supplied to the system, minus the amount of work done by the system on its surroundings. Equivalently, perpetual motion machines of the first kind are impossible.

Closed system
Wiki: In an engineering context, a closed system is a bound system, i.e. defined, in which every input is known and every resultant is known (or can be known) within a specific time.

There are assumptions here:
1) It is assumed that the universe is a closed system, something totally unknown and unknowable.
2) It is assumed that science knows all of the kinds of energy that can possibly exist in the universe, while science admits that it can only observe some 4 or 5% of the universe.
3) It is assumed that a small closed system contains only the energy that is studied or sanctioned by science.
4) It is assumed that the thermodynamics of heat can be applied to electricity, something also impossible for a science that does not study electricity.
5) It is assumed that science knows all about the universe when science also admits that it can only observe 4 or 5%.
6) It is assumed that energy cannot be created, but energy must have been created at the big bang or where did it come from (scientifically speaking)?

elephantThe above law tends to collapse when science denies existence to certain kinds of energy whilst using a theory to prove a negative.

All swans were white until black swans were found in Australia. Denying black swans does not add to the sum of knowledge and is therefore not science. Einstein did not deny the black swans, he said ‘we don’t need them’. Science saw this as an opportunity to deny the existence of elephants.

Tesla on Einstein’s relativity theories: “Only the existence of a field of force can account for the motions of the bodies as observed, and its assumption dispenses with space curvature. All literature on this subject is futile and destined to oblivion. So are all attempts to explain the workings of the universe without recognizing the existence of the ether and the indispensable function it plays in the phenomena.
My second discovery was of a physical truth of the greatest importance. As I have searched the entire scientific records in more than a half dozen languages for a long time without finding the least anticipation, I consider myself the original discoverer of this truth, which can be expressed by the statement: There is no energy in matter other than that received from the environment.” – Nikola Tesla


Comments that somehow got removed?:

6 thoughts on “Free Energy: WikiLies”

  1. I’m quite serious about this concept of free energy. Steven Greer discusses it—he was very close to having an engineer on loan from a black budget free energy program head his lab in Charlottesville until it was shut down when the military official who was helping him wound up floating in the Potomac a week later.

    I find that I have a curious “luck” in stumbling across things when I’m not looking that have to do with subjects like these…

    Wilhelm Reich writes about a meeting he had with Einstein who had put out the word to scientists about a book he was putting together that he hoped would help us understand physics better. Scientists were invited to share their experiments with him for possible inclusion in his book.

    Reich, normally a psychologist, had an interest in cutting edge energy and he showed Einstein an experiment that involved a thermometer inside a Faraday Cage which would always read one degree above ambient.This was small, but significant because it suggested that the cage was in some way collecting a low level energy resulting in the temperature variation.

    At first, Einstein said that this was really huge. Later, however, after talking with his assistant, he backtracked. In fact, Einstein left this experiment out of his book. No one would have known about this was it not for the fact that Reich published his account in one of his books (which, I point out, were confiscated by our govt and burned in the streets of NYC—an almost unbelievable act, except it really did happen). A few books survived, enough for a new generation of physicists to ponder what the implications of his experiment even meant.

    Along with Greer’s seemingly wild tale of ET craft recovery and backward engineering energy drives from those ships now doesn’t seem so outlandish when Reich had discovered what is a vast, but low-level energy source all around us. Like an infinite sea of energy only two inches deep, it waits for us to learn how to tap that energy. Reich, I think, has already given us a very big hint. To date,I don’t know anyone who has made this same connection about energy and what Reich was on to. I think Greer is on my list for who I’m going to contact next!

    Liked by you

    1. Thanks for the comment, I agree with all that you say. My own opinion is that the only way to make any progress is to scrap mainstream science theory (physics) and return to faithful old aether theory.

      Wrote to another site today about cold electricity.

      I’m quite flattered that you wrote to me before contacting Greer 🙂 Be sure to let me know what he says.


      1. I seem to recall that there was a theory created based on observations about ether or aether, it was “proven” wrong but was picked up again as totally workable? I think the big things tend to elude us, and this is one reason why I think we never have gotten a workable unified field theory, for example. Maybe electrons are so solidly quantifiable while aether is just hard to wrap your head around. If only we had someone of Tesla’s free thinking genius around….guess we will have to be that Tesla.

        Liked by you

      2. Aether theory was never proven wrong for the simple reason that all of our electronic technology is based upon it. For example: the electron could never have been discovered (and I’m not at all happy with the electron) if all of the electronic components were not in place; I’m talking about circuitry, inductors, resistors, capacitors and the cathode ray tube, plus a full understanding of how they work. The fact that the aether was debunked does not explain how it is that we are still using the same debunked electronics more than a hundred years later.
        The aether was debunked by the oligarchs who hold the purse strings of physics research funding, for their own financial agenda. It is not widely known that when Tesla had his funding stopped, the same was applied to all the scientists who were doing the same work, like Maxwell, Faraday, JJ Thomson, Crookes, Lord Kalvin etc.. Thomson would toast the electron “To the electron — may it never be of any use to anybody.”
        If you watch the Youtube videos of Eric P Dollard he reads that there was a conference in the US around the 1900’s where the top men in electronics met to discuss free energy, and all agreed that they would have a working free energy device by the end of the year. What happened?


  2. When I say a theory is proven wrong, I’m not in any way suggesting that it really is wrong, only that *people* have decided it’s wrong for their own inclinations, desires, agendas and beliefs. An experiment with Einstein by Reich I think helped to support the power of the aether field. That experiment was not published by Einstein in his book, though. The power held in the aether is so ubiquitous that it’s a nightmare for the JP Morgan’s and Rockefeller’s who want a quanta to package and sell. Aether can’t be quanta-fide because it’s all around us. An infinite supply just waiting to be tapped…

    Liked by you

    1. Yes, as I recall Einstein said that Reich’s orgone box was heated by the ambient temperature of the room. He used the same excuse when debunking Dayton Millers continued Michelson Moreley experiments.
      Miller said:”The effect [of ether-drift] has persisted throughout. After considering all the possible sources of error, there always remained a positive effect.” — Dayton Miller (1928, p.399)
      Einstein said: “My opinion about Miller’s experiments is the following. … Should the positive result be confirmed, then the special theory of relativity and with it the general theory of relativity, in its current form, would be invalid. Experimentum summus judex. Only the equivalence of inertia and gravitation would remain, however, they would have to lead to a significantly different theory.” — Albert Einstein, in a letter to Edwin E. Slosson, 8 July 1925 (from copy in Hebrew University Archive, Jerusalem.)

More to come……..

4 thoughts on “Free Energy: WikiLies

    1. Hi Sha’Tara
      I’ve been doing this kind of thing for years, but I do try to keep it as simple as possible. I find the reason why people are scared to criticise science is because they are scared of ridicule – the emperors new clothes syndrome. If more people questioned what is going-on we would have a far better science. The universe and that includes the Earth, is seething with free energy and it’s the so called “Laws of Science” that prevent us from doing so. I sometimes write to individual scientists and question them on such issues as this and you would be amazed at the response – far from having answers (if they answer at all) they fudge answers – “you are unqualified” or some such, they certainly do not inform or even highlight mistakes.

      Science like everything else in this world of ours is a fraud…period.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.