The history of science shows it to be a chain of uncorrected mistakes. These mistakes are passed on to other disciplines where they create and compound further errors. Being an authoritarian discipline with responsibility for education, science, because of its nature is incapable of correcting its own mistakes. It’s collective ego forbids the very notion of historical error and so it sinks ever deeper into its own mire. Further corruption occurs with funding from corporations with a vested interest in maintaining the economic status quo for their own gain. They award funding on the condition that the research is beneficial to them. And so we have a completely corrupted system that will not touch certain areas of research, those that tend, in this instance, to include clean alternative energy sources. Make no mistake, science will lie through its teeth in order to gain funding and retain its position as the font of all knowledge and it does so on a regular basis. This is not publicised because science is held in a misdirected high regard and like the tale of the emperors new clothes many are afraid to criticise for fear of ridicule.
Cheap, Clean Energy — Suppressed
“If I want to stop a research program I can always do it by getting a few experts to sit in on the subject, because they know right away that it was a fool thing to try in the first place.” – Charles Kettering, GM 1
Anonymous Law: If it happens, it must be possible.
Cold Fusion, Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENR)
Pons and Fleischmann en.wiki: The most commonly publicised cold fusion claims were made by Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann in 1989. After a brief period of interest by the wider scientific community, their reports were called into question by nuclear physicists. Pons and Fleischmann never retracted their claims, but moved their research program to France after the controversy erupted.” 2 But as we have seen on other pages, nothing is new and long before Pons and Fleischmann was Thomas Graham, back in the 1800’s. see woodrow.org: “Graham was the first to observe that palladium metal is able to absorb large amounts of hydrogen gas, especially at lower temperatures. In addition he observed that when the palladium with hydrogen dissolved and is exposed to the atmosphere, the metal is likely to become hot and suddenly discharge the gas. This mechanism was offered as a possible explanation for the energy released during the “cold fusion” controversy several years ago.” 3
And again cold-fusion.ca: “The first observation of this theory was in the 19th century by Thomas Graham. Then around 1920’s two Austrian scientists, Paneth and Peter’s experimental observations prove the same theory. However they later reported that the transformation of hydrogen to helium was due to exposure to room temperature. Later in 1927, Swedish scientist J Tandberg’s claim for a patent application was denied as he was unable to explain the physical process involving fusion of hydrogen to helium.” 4
Nothing under the sun is new and this is the same process as the cold fusion we hear about today. It includes the same lame excuse about there being no theory, that spins into the same circular argument and therefore: If we take the advice of experts, there will never be anything new…
ncas.org: and Kurt Peters again en.wiki: “In 1949 he returned to academia, and was appointed as professor at the Department of ordinary fuel at TH Vienna.” maybe, as opposed to extraordinary fuel, or taboo fuel? 5
ncas.org: Cold fusion is rediscovered: “In 1927, Swedish scientist J. Tandberg claimed that he had fused hydrogen into helium in an electrolytic cell with palladium electrodes. On the basis of his work he applied for a Swedish patent for “a method to produce helium and useful reaction energy”. After deuterium was discovered in 1932, Tandberg continued his experiments with D2O (heavy water). Due to Paneth and Peters’ retraction, Tandberg’s patent application was denied…” 6
It looks as though cold fusion was well researched by chemists in the 1920’s, but rejected due to theoretical objections, a recurring theme in these pages, where according to scientific thinking, a theory is more important than practical experimentation. A clean energy source is lost, and the theorists continue to theorise. It will be sixty years before another Pons and Fleischmann give it an airing, to the relief of the theorists, those who run the energy dictatorship and a net loss to everyone else.
en.wiki and oilprice.com: Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENR) or Cold Fusion “has occupied a scientific backwater now for 23 years. Demonstrations have been repeated again and again, a great deal of know-how has been acquired and shared over the Internet. Scientists who stuck with it have been vindicated to those who are interested in the field.
In 1989, Martin Fleischmann, a scientist at the top of his field, with Stanley Pons told the world they had ran an LENR in a test tube. Within a year scientists from prestigious labs around the world spilled announcements they had tried to duplicate what Fleischmann had reported with no success. The results were not reproducible. Cold Fusion was to become a joke about junk science.
At the time of writing an Italian entrepreneur named Andrea Rossi demonstrated a cold fusion boiler, and announced the taking (of) orders for a 2012 delivery. The following months have brought a lot of others from the personal labs and quiet private researchers out into view.” 7
Cold Fusion: Not dead, just sabotaged by science.
phys.org: “Despite the intense skepticism, a small community of scientists is still investigating near-room-temperature fusion reactions. The latest news occurred last week, when Italian scientists Andrea Rossi and Sergio Focardi of the University of Bologna announced that they developed a cold fusion device capable of producing 12,400 W of heat power with an input of just 400 W. Last Friday, the scientists held a private invitation press conference in Bologna, attended by about 50 people, where they demonstrated what they claim is a nickel-hydrogen fusion reactor. Further, the scientists say that the reactor is well beyond the research phase; they plan to start shipping commercial devices within the next three months and start mass production by the end of 2011.
Rossi and Focardis paper on the nuclear reactor has been rejected by peer-reviewed journals, but the scientists aren’t discouraged. They published their paper in the Journal of Nuclear Physics, an online journal founded and run by themselves, which is obviously cause for a great deal of skepticism. They say their paper was rejected because they lack a theory for how the reaction works. According to a press release in Google translate, the scientists say they cannot explain how the cold fusion is triggered, but the presence of copper and the release of energy are witnesses…” 8
Distinguished Professor John Bockris: “The work published under the title “Cold Fusion” or in its modern title, “Condensed Matter Nuclear Reactions” gave rise to a series of attacks upon Bockris and his work which began in 1992 and continued through 1995.” 9 Apparently his cold fusion work was investigated three times for fraud, although no fraud was ever found. I think “they”, wanted to shut him up.
MIT wildalchemist.blogspot.co.uk: “The measure of MIT’s success in killing off cold fusion (MIT later retracted its claim) is that still today, the US Department of Energy refuses to fund any research into it while the US Patent Office relies on the MIT report to refuse any patents based on or relating to cold fusion processes even though hundreds have been submitted.” – Alternative Science: Challenging the Myths of the Scientific Establishment by Richard Milton 10
atlantisrising.com: “While cold fusionists have suffered charges of bad science’, the veracity of MIT’s results have also been called into question by Dr. Eugene Mallove, author of a Pulitzer-Prize nominated book about cold fusion and former chief science-writer for the MIT News Office. Mallove resigned his post in protest, claiming top level people at MIT’s physics department manipulated cold fusion data. Currently he edits Cold Fusion Technology magazine in Concord, N.H. Mallove claims the fix was in from the start, that negative conclusions were drawn before research data was analyzed, and that those involved have a vested interest in maligning cold fusion.” 11
MIT and Cold Fusion: A Special Report Introduction by Dr. Eugene F. Mallove
e-catsite.com: “As many know, MIT was at the forefront in the effort to discredit cold fusion in 1989, and the report issued by that institution detailing a failed replication attempt carried an enormous amount of weight in forming the public perception that cold fusion was a hoax and “junk science…However, in a report published by the late Dr. Eugene Mallove in 1999, he extensively detailed the efforts of some high-ranking individuals at MIT to falsify positive replication results in order to ensure that MIT continued to receive tens of millions of dollars in US government funding for its plasma fusion (“hot fusion”) program.” 12
Cold fusion is an over-unity device – one good reason for science to kill it off. But it only becomes ‘over unity’ or ‘free energy’ within the tight confines of academic physics when the possibility of an alternate energy supply is rejected due to the lack of a theory. Note the logical inconsistency? Cold fusion is much like alchemy, something science would also like to forget, a taboo subject that reminds them of their roots in “superstition and ignorance”. The ignorance is based on the scientific certainty that alchemists have never transmuted metals.
But then, a shock, horror, a headline screams:
“Alchemy Nightmare: Skeptic Finds Heavy Element. Transmutation Cold Fusion Experiment! Hidden 3-years.”
Apparently, the cold fusion process is not restricted to heat production alone, researchers have consistently found an accompanying abundance of transmuted elements – alchemy suddenly becomes reality. Science has been trying to distance itself from the alchemy anathema of Isaac Newton and Robert Boyle ever since the early days of the Royal Society. One can see at least one more reason why the idea of cold fusion has to go. A much needed energy source is debunked as a face-saving exercise for humanists, materialists, hot-fusionists and sceptics while greenhouse gas increases. 13
Transmutation, The Alchemist Dream Come True. i-sis.org: “Not just base metals into gold; but the profuse creation of elements that is rewriting the book of genesis. Dr. Mae-Wan Ho” “Cold fusion scientists have managed, not so much to transmute base metals into gold (although there have been unconfirmed reports to that effect), but more spectacularly, to make a whole range of elements on the lab bench, with equipment not much more sophisticated than what the ancient alchemists might have used. In the process, nuclear energy is released – safely and without toxic or radioactive wastes – that could be harnessed for heating or to generate electricity  (see From Cold Fusion to Condensed Matter Nuclear Science, SiS 36).” 14 15
Low Energy Nuclear Reactions, the Realism and the Outlook by Dennis Bushnell, Chief Scientist NASA Langley Research Center futureinnovation.larc.nasa.gov:
“Therefore, the LENR situation and outlook is the following:
•Something real is happening.
•The weak interaction theories suggest what the physics might be.
•There are efforts ongoing to explore the validity of the theories.
•There are continuing Edisonian efforts to produce “devices” mainly for heat or in some cases transmutations.
•There are efforts to “certify” such devices.
•NASA LaRC has begun LENR design studies guided by the Weak Interaction Theory” 16
There can be little doubt of the reality of Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LNR), Cold Fusion Reactions, and that there is a strong case to be made for, at the very least, a clean and by all accounts plentiful energy source. The bottom line is that it is embarrassing to most scientists and extremely unpopular with hot fusion (plasma) scientists. The problem that these detractors must overcome is how to justify continuing atmospheric pollution and the massive expense of a reaction that certainly does not work, while ignoring one that does. Science is reluctant to drop hot fusion, even though it has failed miserably for the best part of a century and cost the taxpayer huge amounts of cash:
Hot Nuclear Fusion, science. howstuffworks.com: “In nuclear fusion, you get energy when two atoms join together to form one. In a fusion reactor, hydrogen atoms come together to form helium atoms, neutrons and vast amounts of energy. It’s the same type of reaction that powers hydrogen bombs and the sun.” 17 Always presented as if it will work next week, the problem with the above is that the fusion reactors don’t work – period. Physicists have been trying to make them work for almost a century with little success, but unlike cold fusion, we don’t see any attacks from the sceptics. For some unexplained reason there is not a murmur of dissent from those who see it as their prime function in life to debunk the things for which there is little evidence. When science has no evidence they look the other way.
The original idea was first suggested by Arthur Eddington, (champion extraordinary of Albert Einstein), who, in the 1920’s, declared that nuclear fusion is what powers the stars, including our own sun. There is no direct evidence that this is true, but theory and circular reasoning says it is so, and so efforts to tap the energy of the sun began almost immediately. Ever increasing government funds have been thrown at various reactor designs over the decades with ever-diminishing returns on ever larger investments and always promises of jam tomorrow from the physicists.
It was the hot fusion mob who were the most vociferous in objecting to cold fusion on the grounds that it did not conform to the rules of the theory they were using. (This is the same theory that has failed for almost a century). While by contrast the theory-free cold fusion reactors appear to work despite the obvious lack of a comparable budget and the extreme lack of enthusiasm from the scientific community. Is there an existential problem here or is it just about losing their regular social security payments?
Nuclear hot fusion reactions are purely theoretical constructs and we have already seen how theory fails. In the case of hot fusion, the theory stands-firm as far as physicists are concerned, as it would, even though we have seen evidence on other pages that there is something radically wrong with atomic theory. There is much evidence that the Sun produces its heat by an electrical process, but this would bugger the theory, not to mention lucrative physicist’s jobs. And so, the scientists will continue to spend shed-loads of tax-payers cash, regardless of problems which they will ignore in order to save face and stay in a job.
What we have here is the scientific academic version of free energy! The very same as the academics are so want to shout-down when others claim successes. They have a non-working technology that they swear will work as soon as enough money is pumped into it.
Wiki says:“The share of renewables in electricity generation is around 18%, with 15% of global electricity coming from hydroelectricity and 3% from new renewables.(2008). Wind power is growing at the rate of 30% annually, with a worldwide installed capacity of 158 gigawatt’s (GW) in 2009.” 18 “World consumption is around 17,109,665,000(MW h/yr)(2005) with most coming from non renewables.” (coal and oil) 19
If coal and oil were withdrawn, our civilisation would collapse because the impact of wind-power and other renewables is negligible. And so, if we don’t get a new energy source soon, we are in big trouble. The incurable optimism of scientists is not likely to solve the problem any time soon.
“There is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct, or more uncertain in its success than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things, because the innovator has for enemies all those who have done well under the old condition, and lukewarm defenders in those who may do well under the new.” – Machiavelli, 1513
Science Destroys New Ideas
The claim that a theory is required to validate a technology is a little hard to take when one considers that historically most new concepts started out without one; theory was usually added as an afterthought when the idea was up-and-running and undeniable. Theory, always the brainchild and exclusive domain of the academic, when applied, becomes the last word on the subject and makes the original idea the property of academic science. The down-side is that the theory then restricts the original idea to the parameters of the theory, thereby preventing further research outside of the theory, just as with the 1927, Paneth and Peters fusion reaction above.
To attempt further non-theory research is to invite the accusation of pseudo science and thereby the circle is complete. A win-win scenario for academia while just about everyone else loses. Supporting this system is the peer-reviewer who will reject anything that does not have the backing of academia – and the circle is then squared and the original idea is confined to a box.
Anyone with a new energy idea they wish to market is confronted with obstacles, in that an investor will approach “the experts” to ask if the technology is viable. The physicist, ‘expert’, will reject the technology, usually without testing, if it is new to science and lacks a theory.
“It is really quite amazing by what margins competent but conservative scientists and engineers can miss the mark, when they start with the preconceived idea that what they are investigating is impossible. When this happens, the most well-informed men become blinded by their prejudices and are unable to see what lies directly ahead of them.” – Arthur C. Clarke, 1963
Just a few of the ideas that had no theory and were not peer-reviewed :
The first powered aircraft.
The steam engine.
The first transistor.
The first radio transmissions.
The science of Radio Astronomy.
The first computer.
There are countless other examples because new concepts are not born out of consensus academic theories. They are more often than not the product of an individual’s imagination. If there is one single thing that would change the world for the better, for ever, it is the introduction of a cheap and clean energy system. Preferably, this system would be self-contained and able to be fitted into each individual home. It would free everyone from the energy dictatorship that exists even in what are supposed to be democracies. The single most important priority of science should be to find such a system. What we have is the opposite: an attempt to use the theory/peer-review system to prevent the development of possible sources of clean cheap energy for the sake of vested interests like the endless-and-failed, expensive ‘hot fusion’ project, fiasco that is supported by the energy industry to maintain the financial status quo.
We are all hypnotised by the constant barrage from education, the media, government and science itself, that the benevolence of science will build us a utopia, and here we have clear-cut evidence that this is simply not true. If science is to be seen as a shadow of what it claims to be, it should be constantly and vigilantly looking to supply the world with inexpensive clean energy – the thing we all need most. What we have in fact, is bickering, back-biting and lame untrue excuses about theory and peer-review, that combine to equate to a concerted effort to kill-off any notion of a new energy source.
Example: Refusal to look outside of the Box
Wiki:”In July 1998, Deborah Chung and Shoukai Wang of the University of Buffalo presented the results of an experiment that showed an apparent absolute negative resistance in bare carbon fibers held together by pressure.”
In Chung’s own words:
“True negative resistance in the former sense is not possible due to energy (conservation) consideration. However, apparent negative resistance in the former sense is reported here. … Although the negative resistance reported here is apparent rather than true, its mechanism resembles that of true negative resistance (which actually does not occur due to energetics) in that the electrons flow in the unexpected direction relative to the applied current/voltage.” (The sheer frustration is apparent)
Wang, Chung, Apparent negative electrical resistance in carbon fibre composites. 20
Negative resistance, (more comes out than goes in) in regard to the above tongue-in cheek account, requires an additional external energy input, but this is said to be contrary to thermodynamic law (impossible) as no additional input is detected. However, if we look closely, we see that no additional input is detected by the “usual methods” of detection. This means that no unusual energy detector is available – a fudge on the part of scientific testing that assumes that all possible energy is known; this of course is absurd. It assumes that academic science knows everything there is to know about energy. Apart from the fact that the assumption is more than a little crazy, it has the effect of ending research because it becomes futile in the face of science knowing it all.
Science, in its infinite wisdom ‘knows’ that new energy sources are impossible and so it ignores them; this is not the only example.
Gabriel Kron and the Negative Resistor
It appears that Gabriel Kron also discovered (impossible) negative resistors, but his work was highly censored: Tom Bearden cheniere.org:”Pooh-poohing the Kron negative resistor is just sheer naïveté. Kron was one of the greatest electrical scientists of all time… Simply go check his papers in the literature. Even today, there are few electrodynamicists really able to fully comprehend his advanced work. And his direct quotations from his own published technical papers in the literature leave no doubt he had made a negative resistor…The mechanism by which he did this is what Kron was never allowed to reveal.” 21
The en.wiki winps say: “Negative resistors are theoretical and do not exist as a discrete component.” 22 So says the voice of authority.
Free Energy Clarification Free Energy v Perpetual Motion
The emotional outbursts of scientists about the laws of thermodynamics prohibiting fee energy are quite wrong. Most have come to expect clear thinking from our academics and for some, any ex-cathedra pontification by one who has a PhD. is sufficient to engender an end to any more questioning. Equating free energy with perpetual motion is supposed to lead the flock to reject the very idea of free energy by association.
From the first dawning of human technology we have always had free energy and erecting a sail on a boat must have been the first time the wind was harnessed. Wind is a free energy resource that went on to drive mills and sail-boats right up to the present day. The watermill leading to hydro-electric power has a similar extended history of free energy.
Free energy is deriving power without cost.
Perpetual motion is an impossible concept because it is required to draw energy from nothing. Many of the free energy attempts by inventors of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries are called perpetual motion because they ‘appear’ to be expecting their device to run on nothing. But there is a caveat: Many of these inventors were trying to tap the luminiferous aether, a quite acceptable concept at the time, backed by the science of their day. As we have seen in other pages, the aether was abandoned and debunked by science. The inventors gradually gave-up the quest, having been assured by science that what they were doing was impossible. Such is the trust bestowed by a science-inspired, education. It’s only in the past few decades that a few have again decided to ignore ‘impossible’ for the sake of clean, cheap energy that will only arrive if we discard the textbook.
Their quest is legitimate in that the aether has never been proven not to exist and there is evidence, even from science itself that it does. Aether was rejected and ridiculed by science mainly to make-way for Einstein’s theories, but it has returned via the rear door, disguised as ZPE, vacuum energy etc.. One of the major and inherent problems of academic science is its obsession with the second law of thermodynamics. But there are many examples of the appearance of exotic energy, sufficient to show that alternative energy is a reality, as we will see:
Keely, Griggs and Clem
Cavitation is something well-known to science and usually described as a nuisance and a cause of damage, although there are a few useful applications in common use.
Wiki wimps: “Cavitation is the formation and then immediate implosion of cavities in a liquid – i.e. small liquid-free zones (“bubbles”) – that are the consequence of forces acting upon the liquid. It usually occurs when a liquid is subjected to rapid changes of pressure that cause the formation of cavities where the pressure is relatively low.” 23
Below are three different methods for extracting energy from controlled cavitation, an unusual energy source. The idea of using cavitation as a power source has occurred to a few inventors who seem to have used this method of power generation successfully, albeit with no support from the ‘experts’ who claim “no theory, can’t work….” “…if excess energy production could be demonstrated it would overturn 300 years of experience by breaching the Principle of Conservation of Energy”. This is called progress!
James L. Griggs
GRIGGS WATER HEATER
A typical working example: panacea-bocaf.org “Quote: James Griggs’ Hydrosonic Pump is already being sold to customers, regularly providing them with over-unity energy. An energy efficiency consultant from Georgia, Griggs invented the pump as a result of his curiosity about a common phenomenon called water hammer or cavitation. Griggs noticed that heat emanated from fluids which flow quickly through the pipes of a boiler causing water pressure to drop in part of the pipe. Bubbles formed in the low-pressure areas collapse when carried to areas of higher pressure. The resulting shock waves collide inside the pipe bringing about the water hammer effect.
Griggs’ pump is made up of a cylindrical rotor that fits closely within a steel case. When the rotor spins, water is forced through the shallow space between the rotor and the case. The resulting acceleration and turbulence created in the gap somehow heats the water and creates steam. In 1988, a testing expert found that the heat energy put out by the hydro sonic pump was 10% to 30% higher than energy used to turn the rotor.” 24
There has been a huge amount of controversy and debunking of Griggs’ claims as one would expect, but NASA seems to have taken an interest: NASA is very careful with its wording:
spinoff.nasa.gov:”The secret to the HPump’s success, according to the inventor, is the use of shock waves to produce the heat, rather than electric heating elements or fossil fuels. The shock wave effect is commonly referred to as a “water hammer” and is usually considered a problem that needs to be removed. Hydro Dynamics founder Jim Griggs began his research into harnessing the benefits of the “water hammer” in 1985 and founded Hydro Dynamics five years later.
The rotor inside the HPump produces shock waves, which in turn generate millions of microscopic bubbles inside the liquid. As the bubbles collapse, heat is released creating a heating “inside the liquid” effect rather than from an outside surface. Conventional technologies transfer heat into liquids using high temperature metal surfaces or flames.” 25
It matters not one jot what theory says if the thing actually works. 26 27
It is claimed that the Griggs heating system provides more heat than can be accounted for by electrical energy input. It may seem in direct violation of the principle of the conservation of energy and this makes it a taboo area to the scientific community. Companies wishing to invest in such innovation will want to protect their investment and will naturally ask those whom they see as the experts. The scientists will tell them that the idea is not viable because it conflicts with the theory of conservation of energy and the companies will not invest. The problem with all of this, (the science sounds so rational), is that the other innovative examples listed below were also condemned by the scientific community for the same or similar reasons.
It’s not that they don’t work, science insists that ‘they can’t work’.
The idea of conservation of energy is basic to science and assumes, quite rightly and obviously that you cannot get something from nothing. A problem arises from energy conservation when it excludes the possibility of an alternative or exotic energy source, a theoretical abuse for which the energy conservation law was not intended. If it is first assumed that an alternative energy is possible, then there is no conflict with energy conservation, but science claims to know all sources of energy. Oh dear, I was not aware that science knows everything! If they did, they would have long ago abandoned hot fusion.
panacea-bocaf.org: “A new cavitation device similar to the Griggs machine is now available for testing, scientific investigation and purchase by research laboratories. This is the “Kinetic Furnace” of Kinetic Heating Systems, Inc. of Cumming, Georgia. Jointly invented by Eugene Perkins and Ralph E. Pope, the furnace is a heat-producing rotary cavitation device for which the inventors have been granted four United States patents, the most recent one in 1994. Numerous independent companies and testing agencies have found the same over-unity performance: Coefficient of Performance or C.O.P.(the ratio of output to input power) in the range 1.2 to as high as 7.0, with most typical operation in the range 1.5 to 2.0. Dr. Mallove and Jed Rothwell of Infinite Energy recently confirmed the excess heat in a preliminary on-site test.” 28
Infinite Energy Magazine Update, Published in IE Volume 4, Issue #21 September 1998
infinite-energy.com: “1. Kinetic Furnace of Kinetic Heating Systems, Inc. of Cumming, Georgia
(Featured in Issue #19): At NERL we have further tested the second unit of the Kinetic Furnace that we received. Again, we obtained disappointing results that are in the range COP= 1.01 to 1.15— too low to call guaranteed over-unity. We still do not understand the differences between conditions in Bow and those in Georgia. So, we attempted to use various different sources of water, so far without seeing increases in COP.
Kinetic Heating Systems has acquired a more professional air-flow monitoring system than its Dwyer pressure gage. Still, the company reports significant over-unity power production. The particular device is an Air Data Multimeter (ADMA60), made by Shortridge Instrument Company, Inc., of Scottsdale, Arizona. The following are three tests that Kinetic Heating Systems has recently performed:
Test #1: August 17, 1998
• 200 V, 16.5 amp without blower fan, 19.5 A with blower fan on
• 3.6 kW-hour input energy = 12,287 Btu
• 1,059 CFM air flow
• T = 18.5 °F (Tin = 87 °F, Tout = 105.5 °F)
• Output energy = 21,159 Btu
C.O.P. = 1.72
Test #2: August 18, 1998
• 200 V, 16.5 amp without blower fan, 19.5 A with blower fan on
• 3.6 kW-hour input energy = 12,287 Btu
• 1,059 CFM air flow
• T = 22.2 °F (Tin = 83 °F, Tout = 105.2 °F)
• Output energy = 24,671 Btu
C.O.P. = 2.0
Test #3: August 20, 1998
• 3.6 kW-hour input energy = 12,287 Btu
• 1,049 CFM air flow
• T = 23 °F (Tin = 79 °F, Tout = 102.0 °F)
• Output energy = 26,077 Btu
C.O.P. = 2.12″ 29
COP = coefficient of performance = how much in compared to how much out.
infinite-energy.com: “The first U.S. Patent, #4,424,797 for “Heating Device” was awarded to Eugene Perkins, January 10, 1984 (filed October 13, 1981). ..” 30 “The present embodiment of the device appears in U.S. Patent #5,341,768 (filed Sept. 21, 1993) by Ralph E. Pope of Cumming, Georgia, “Apparatus for Frictionally Heating Liquid.” This version of the invention has a rotary pumping element spun by an electric motor within a water-filled chamber…” 31
Cavitation or ‘Water Hammer’ is what causes noisy plumbing in domestic water systems and sometimes it even bursts pipes. It is characterised by rattling or banging in the pipes. It was this well known problem that led Frenchman Joseph Michel Montgolfier, 1740-1810, of the ballooning Montgolfier brothers fame, to invent the first self-acting ram pump for raising water to his paper mill at Voiron. He realised the surprising amount of energy that can be derived by this ‘free energy’ method. 32 Both the ram pump and the revolving heater drums above work on the same basic principle.
How The Ram Pump Works
The ram pump uses a low pressure water supply to achieve a higher water-pressure, usually driving (lifting) the water to a much higher level than the original supply.
This is achieved by creating pressure-pulses within the water flow in the pump by closing a valve when the flow is at its highest. Utilising (releasing) the pressurised water with a second valve and directing it to a pressure vessel, using the raised pressure in the vessel to force the water to a higher level. The lower pressure of the water in the pump releases the first valve, the flow resumes and the cycle is repeated.
This neglected source of free energy is up-and-running, used, all around the world. Free electricity is yours for the taking if you have a reasonable flow of water, a flowing stream at the bottom of your garden.
Inventor Richard Clem’s idea sprang from his observations of a asphalt spraying machine that continued to run for some time after being switched off. One can only assume that the motor is very much like the original, that seems to be a device to heat the asphalt before spraying, much like the revolving heater drums above. 33
rexresearch.com:Tyler Courier-Times (Sunday July 9, 1972)
Flower Mound, Texas — Richard Clem claims that if the automobile industry would adopt his new invention, the American motorist would change the oil in his car only every 115,000 miles and in between not buy any gas. That might come as a shock to Detroit and the petroleum industry, but Clem, a heavy equipment operator for the city of Dallas and a spare time inventor, said he has discovered what french fries and hashbrowns have know for years — that vegetable oil is a hot product. He said his motor — much of which he won’t divulge — uses eight gallons of vegetable oil for fuel.
“Engineers have told me this can’t work,” Clem said, laughing. “I only know it does. It will do someone some good and will help keep the air clean.”
His motor is mounted in a bright red car but he said if it is made large enough, “this type of engine could power ships, aircraft, even provide enough power to produce enough energy for large cities.
Vegetable Oil Best ~ “I use vegetable oil because right now the engine is running at 300 degrees,” said Clem, 43. “Water would boil and evaporate and conventional motor oil would break down. “The only apparent outside source of power in his car is a 12 volt battery, which Clem said “is used only to start the engine. Once started you can throw the battery away.” He said, however, the battery is also used to power the car’s lights and horn. His power plant and car, both financed through his regular earnings, are not the picture of Detroit designing.
“I’m not an engineer, I’m an inventor,” he said. “When I get this done I’ll turn it over to the engineers and they can develop the finished product.”
He said he once attempted to get financial backing, but “is now playing the waiting game.”
“I’ve had offers recently” he said. “But I don’t know, I don’t want to be obligated to anyone.”
Seven Stage Pump ~ Outside the meager electrical portion of the system used to start the motor and run the lights and horn, the power plant consists of a seven stage pump and a “converter. “The pump, as he described it, is used to move the oil, under pressure, from a storage area to the converter from where the energy is converted into enough power to turn the motor, move the oil back to the storage area and power the pump, which in turn continues the cycle.One hint as to the contents of the converter is “it acts like a turbine but isn’t a turbine” in the normal sense of the word, Clem said. He said his car has “some bugs in it,” but said it has been driven as fast as 103 miles per hour. And when he gets the bugs worked out, he plans to take it on a test trip 600 miles to El Paso, Texas.” 34
micro-combustion.com: “Several years ago, an original CIBC (Cavitation-Ignition Bubble Combustion Engine) was built and placed in a vehicle by a Mr. Clem to demonstrate its utility (Google in “Clem Hydraulic Motor,” plus hit on the Clem Car). The engine was demonstrated at the Texas State Fair, after which it was never shown again and eventually destroyed. In building this particular engine, Mr. Clem had not developed it far enough to prove out all the scientific knowledge and engineering theories for purposes of patent and commercialization.
Later Mr. Ray and Mr. Clem started building another engine. At this time certain concepts were realized and known by Mr. Ray relative to this engine. Prior to completion of the engine, Mr. Clem died. Mr. Clem was survived by his wife and two children, without disclosing details of the CIBC engine to any of them. Mr. Ray has since continued their work to fully develop an advanced operational engine design concept, which is discussed below.” 35
The Clem engine is something of a mystery, but interesting engineering and reasonably well documented. Clem received no monetary gain from his engine and the difficult thing to understand is his motive for so much hard work if this was an elaborate hoax? I don’t see many sceptics working on this one though and I have to wonder why?
John Ernst Worrel Keely was the inventor of the Keely Motor and victim to a constant barrage of abuse from the men of science of his day, something that persists even into our own time. Keely debunking has become a permanent feature.
All of this was of course, backed by the press, ever eager to grab a good story.
At least one of Keely’s surviving motors works on the cavitation-ram pump principle and Keely always emphasised his use of the (at the time) scientifically acceptable aether as the driving force behind all of his creations. It has been claimed that he had up to 2,000 prototype motors and other devices manufactured by engineering companies. The cost must have been eye-watering, not mentioning that the man has been branded a fraud. A strange and bizarre method of making money for an alleged con-man?
An newspaper obituary was recorded by Keely’s contemporary, Charles Fort, who in 1932, stated in his book “Wild Talents”,:
resologist.net: “In November, 1898, Keely died. Clarence B. Moore, son of his patron, Mrs. Bloomfield Moore — short tens of thousands of dollars in his inheritance, because of Keely and his promises — rented Keely’s house, and investigated. According to his findings, Keely was “an unadulterated rascal.”
Moore said that he had found the evidences of rascality. The motor was not the isolated mechanism that, according to him, the stockholders of the Keely Motor Co. had been deceived into thinking it was: he had found an iron pipe and other tubes, and wires that led from the motor to the cellar. Here was a large, spherical, metallic object. There were ashes.
Imposture exposed — the motor had been run by a compressed air engine, in the cellar.
Anybody who has ever tried to keep a secret twenty-four hours, will marvel at this story of an impostor who, against all the forces of revelation, such as gas men, and coal men, and other persons who get into cellars — against inquisitive neighbors, and, if possible, even more inquisitive newspaper men — against disappointed stockholders and outraged conventionalists — kept secret, for twenty-four years, his engine in the cellar.
It made no difference what else came out. Taboo had, or pretended it had, something to base on. Almost all people of all eras are hypnotics. Their beliefs are induced beliefs. The proper authorities saw to it that the proper belief should be induced, and people believed properly.
Stockholders said that they know of the spherical object, or the alleged compressed air engine in the cellar, because Keely had made no secret of it. Nobody demonstrated that by means of this object, the motor could be run. But beliefs can run.”
Wild Talents, Charles Fort. 36
The Keely affair was a fiasco unequalled until the appalling treatment of Immanuel Velikovsky by the science community in the 1950’s and 1960’s.
At least one of Keely’s surviving motors worked on the cavitation/ram pump principle.
The offending object, the thing that all the fuss was about, was a large pressure vessel used by Keely in earlier experiments and buried under the floor. Everyone who worked for Keely knew it was there. The accusation was that Keely’s motors had been run from compressed air and that this was the vessel used to store the air.
To fill the pressure vessel he would have needed a compressor and the author knows of no such compressor that was found or presented as evidence against Keely.
Anyone who knows anything about compressed air knows that you also need a compressor and that compressors are the most noisy of machinery. Even today these machines are often given a soundproof room of their own. No one had ever mentioned a compressor or the sound of one and Keely used extreme pressures for his motors, almost unheard of at the time. Pipes would burst and it’s said that the pressure forced water through the very pores of the castings. The machine found in the cellar was a water-motor, and not a compressor and we will examine this later.
John Keely – Vibratory Physics Lecture – by Dale Pond part 1
Keely’s lab was literally taken apart by Clarence B. Moore shortly after Keely’s death and Moore would have whooped for joy at finding a compressor, but none was ever found.
(Moore was, interestingly, an archaeologist and a fully paid-up member of the scientific fraternity)
All of the debunking theories that I know of, depend on the source of Keely’s power as being compressed air or variations on the same theme. Without a compressor they all fail and no newspaper article, or other written documentation of the time has ever mentioned finding one. 37
The author is all in favour of debunking that which is illogical or just plain wrong, but the facts must be accurate. A debunking with inaccurate facts suggests an agenda, used to bolster other inaccurate facts. This kind of debunking is used by those who wish to support a brand of exclusionism that amounts to dogma. Keely may well have been a fraud for all I know, but the facts presented by his past and present-day detractors would not stand up in a court of law.
The graphic above was published by The New York Journal, based on the evidence of Clarence B. Moore and other debunkers – a work of pure imagination. But, it seems to be the basis for the information of many Keely debunking website’s and publications. 38
Starting from the top of the picture on the previous page, we have a reasonably clear view of a belt that directly drives the machine. For this not to have been noticed by the large number of engineers and scientists who attended Keely’s demonstrations is, to say the least, incredible.
We then descend to the false ceiling where a “rubber tube ending in a pneumatic ball” is seen. I know of no contemporary reports of this being found at the time of the workshop being dismantled. Photographs were published of all that was found and this was not among them, as far as I know. It seems to have been a myth or theory that became an assumption that became alive, in a sceptical fantasy world of its own.
The Water Motor
There were, we are told, other fraudulent means that Keely used to bilk his shareholders, not least is what was described by the press of the day as a “Small Water Motor of Unusual Design” 39 or words to that effect. It is located at the bottom of the graphic. This Water Motor was said to have been used to drive hidden belts and pulleys, as in the graphic above, that in turn drove Keely’s “impossible machines”.
Keely’s workshop was, in effect, a machine-shop where parts were manufactured, with all the machines and equipment that one would expect. At that time all machine-shop-machines were powered by overhead belts driven by pulleys situated above. Any belts that descended to floor level were encased or hidden because they were dangerous, and so we see that a belt “hidden” in a wall cavity was not unusual but desirable. More so when we consider that Keely’s workshop was often crowded with those who came to examine his machines. 40
A small water motor of the type used at the time can be seen here:douglas-self.com:
The best of these museum pieces that I’ve seen (they were water-turbines enclosed in a cast metal body) generates a quarter horsepower and the one in question was limited in Keely’s case by having to be driven by the workshop water supply – probably a domestic tap, working from domestic water mains pressure. This certainly would not provide enough power to drive the belts and pulleys, let alone a machine-shop.
That there was a type of water motor in the cellar at Keely’s workshop is not disputed, but the only one that fits the bill is one of Keely’s own design. 41 42
Dale Pond, a Keely researcher,43assures us in his video that he has had this one, or one like it, working and is intending to make a duplicate for testing purposes, as the original is a museum exhibit and not free for experimentation.
What I have discovered of the workings of Keely’s motor, is that it operates on the principle of cavitation, ‘water hammer’, the design is ingenious, something that would impress any engineer.
And so we have the crazy situation of Keely’s “impossible machines” being surreptitiously driven by one of Keely’s “impossible machines”. We also have compressed air driven machines that seem to work without a compressor? I would suggest the debunkers look again at the facts.
I’ve written to two of the debunking web sites, outlining my doubts regarding their conclusions. One answered and made minor adjustments, while still maintaining the original stance, with even less evidence. The other has failed to answer up to the time of writing, suggesting that they do not want to argue the point. The debunking method seems to follow a trend common in these pages: That, confronted with something not understood or taboo to science, the sceptic reverts to a cosy rationalisation, it may be baloney, but it serves as an explanation. This explanation then takes on a life of its own and becomes a standard, although totally untrue and unjustly destructive to reputations, it is grist to the mill of scepticism and nothing more. It’s time for some of us to look closely, sceptically at the sceptics.
It’s interesting to note that after his death, all of Keely’s technical papers and at least one book he was writing disappeared from his workshop, never to be seen again. A question arises as to who would gain from the theft of technical manuals written by an ‘exposed conman’? This reminds us of Tesla’s papers, the vast majority of which also vanished shortly after his death.
We have above yet another example of a working cavitation machine that defies the manipulated laws of science. It works by cavitation and with the help of the very thing that was abandoned in favour of Mr. Einstein’s Relativity, that never made anything work. The aether, that gave us our electronic technology and is the very something that Keely had spent most of his life developing, only to be called a charlatan and a fraud.
An additional point, although already touched upon but never mentioned by detractors, is the huge cost of the many prototype machines that Keely had built by contractors and then scrapped, something that is well documented. I seriously doubt that a greedy confidence trickster would deplete his own ill gotten gains with such high costs. This is yet another mystery that debunkers ignore exposing their own gullibility to the scientific rationale. But they seem to feel secure in the knowledge that they are supported by an academic science that is prepared to forego the usual norms of human honesty for the sake of upholding the perpetual motion of a flawed and dogmatic science. The need to exchange for religion for dubious science commands a high fee.
“There is a celestial mind-force, a great sympathetic force which is life itself, of which everything is composed.” John Keely. Keely is speaking of the aether. 44
svpvril.com: DENIES KEELY WAS AN IMPOSTOR
PRESIDENT OF THE MOTOR COMPANY DEFENDED THE DEAD INVENTOR.
“NYT -January 26, 1898 – President B. L. Ackerman of the Keely Motor Company, after a meeting of the Board of Directors of the company held yesterday at the office of the Treasurer of the company at 31 Broad Street, gave out a statement denying the published assertions that compressed air or electricity was the force used by Keely in his much-talked-of motor. The statement claims that the tubes spoken of were discarded by Keely many years ago and that in all his experiments since 1887 solid wires only have been used. Up to that time, it is stated, he was working upon a theory of etheric or vaporic force and used the tubes for the conveyance of this force; but after 1887 he became convinced that he had discovered something still more perfect in what he called vibratory sympathy. It was said that a concealed electric wire was found when Keely’s workshop was recently cleared out. This President Ackerman states was the remnant of the wires of a burglar alarm, and was in no way connected with the force used in the Keely motor. The statement reviews at length the various assertions recently made tending to show that Keely was nothing more than a successful impostor, denies all these assertions and declares positively that there was no trickery about any of the results that Keely claimed to have obtained.” 45
Keely Motor Tested. lange.demon.co.uk:
New Etheric Engine and its Powers Displayed in Philadelphia to Representative Railroad Men.
NYT – PHILADELPHIA, Penn., June 19, 1897
“A test of the new etheric engine was made yesterday at Inventor Keely’s laboratory in this city. A number of gentlemen were present, including General Manager Fransioli of the Manhattan Elevated Railway, New York: Mechanical Engineer Pierson of the same company, Chief Electrical Engineer Brown of the Western Union Telegraph Company, and Mr. Sterritt of the Metropolitan Traction Company, New York. All were surprised at the force produced by Mr. Keely’s new motor, (all driven by a quarter horsepower water-motor?) but they declined to express any opinion as to its value. The new engine is a complicated structure, arranged and supplied with vitalized disks of metal, placed at intervals on two hoops or bands of steel, one of which runs inside the other. These disks are composed of a secret metallic composition. Mr. Keely’s representative said he has a large number of drawings, specifications, and photographs, which he will, when he applies for a patent, submit to the authorities at Washington. This he expects to do in about thirty or sixty days. Aside from these disks, Mr. Keely has also prepared a metallic powder, which, to look at, very much resembles iron or steel filings, but which lacks one essential feature of iron or steel – it will not respond to the attraction of a magnet. The engine, which weighs about 200 pounds, will, it is said, develop fully ten-horse power.” 46
Compare the Keely motor to hot fusion – plasma research, that has cost billions with no positive results. Keely had results but was never satisfied with his work.
Exploding water with 42,712.2 Hz, one of Keely’s discoveries that modern science is just starting to wake up to. 47 48
Robert Adams Inspired Motors
These motors are simple to build, but the author found that they produce more interesting effects if magnetically activated mechanical contacts are used rather than the transistor.
“Could a Little Child be Leading Us into a Free Energy Future?”
By Jeane Manning.
Atlantis Rising, November 200(?), pg.32.
“The search for new energy technology takes us to northern Idaho to meet a ten-year-old girl who won a science fair with a battery-charging motor. She describes it as an advanced design that extends the life of batteries for an amazing length of time. The motor was designed by John Bedini and built by her.” 49
The schoolgirl science fair project was so well publicised at the time, that it was featured in the Simpson’s TV program: “This perpetual motion machine she made is a joke: It just keeps going faster and faster.
Lisa, get in here! In this house, we obey the laws of THERMODYNAMICS!” — Homer Simpson
The Adams-Bedini Motor: The motor is driven by repulsion of the rotor north pole magnets by a pulsed north pole electro-magnet stator. The pulses are timed to coincide with the permanent magnet being in the correct position at the time of the pulse for maximum efficiency. The short pulses ensure low current use and thereby the efficiency of the motor.
I’m not sure if this is free energy or if it was ever originally meant to be free energy, but the author has built several of these and they certainly were efficient.
The term ‘free energy’ is used emotionally and applies to anything where the source of energy is cost free, like tapping into you’re next-door-neighbours electricity supply; obviously not to be confused with perpetual motion where something is supposed to be driven with no power source at all. For some obscure reason, many science-based web sites call anything not conventionally driven, perpetual motion – it seems to be an insecure and sceptically biased fear of anything new.
Watching a recent news item about electric cars, it struck me that a car driven by such a motor would be a real advancement in technology, rather than switching the fossil fuel burning from the car to the power station?
Such motors were originally based on the work of Robert Adams. 50
Adams motor, UK Patent, GB2282708. 51
There has been some controversy on the Wiki pages as to whether the Adams Motor is a reluctance motor acceptable to mainstream electronic engineering.
wikitalk: “Fine. I’ll agree on the present text. No problem. But I think you really *OUGHT* to write that reluctance motor article sometime. It would be an interesting addition, and point of comparison. I’ve done scratch pages. At least make a stub page with some links. The Adams motor is not an alien technology, you can reasonably fit it into various recognised branches of existing motor design literature. Just because something is labelled ‘perpetual motion,’ it does not mean no aspect of the device can be understood or explained in standard language. Timharwoodx 19:29, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
OK, I think we got something like civilized consensus here. Yes, writing the missing article should be high priority on my list. –Pjacobi 20:52, 2005 Feb 18 (UTC)
Well, the present wording is ‘suggested categorisation.’ Hardly a strong statement, I think. It opens and closes with perpetual motion. If you feel the further qualification is required in the sentence afterwards, then fine. But this is exactly why I got fed up with Wiki, and moved over to Wikinfo, because in seeking an unobtainable 100% bias free narrative, you just end up with broken prose. The Adams motor is in many respects just an s.r. motor, and some would argue that is entirely the problem. Yet this simple fact has to be laden with several rather verbose qualfications.” 52
Wiki wrongly identifies the Adams Motor as a perpetual motion device:
en.wiki: “Perpetual motion describes “Motion that continues indefinitely without any external source of energy; impossible in practice because of friction.” It can also be described as “the motion of a hypothetical machine which, once activated, would run forever unless subject to an external force or to wear”. There is a scientific consensus that perpetual motion in an isolated system would violate the first and/or second law of thermodynamics.” 53
The Adams Motor appears in Wiki under the heading “Perpetual Motion”, which supports my own feeling that the term is deliberately abused and used to divert attention away from the sad fact that science has never bothered to investigate these high efficiency electric motors. The phrase Perpetual Motion equates with impossibility. My own experience: having built several of these motors to different configurations, I can say with a high degree of confidence that they do work and they are efficient. I found that using the mechanical method of metal contacts rather than a transistor was the most interesting.
In the final version, I wired a large capacitor and a resistor in series across the contacts. The resistor became very hot even though I was using only a small 9 volt portable printer charger for the supply, with no obvious effect on the rotation of the motor. The circuit appeared to emit large amounts of unidentified radiation, destroying many of the components in a near-by computer. There seems to be much scope for research here, but science is disinterested, preferring to debunk.
All Adams-Bedini type motors run from a power supply, they are very efficient and ideal for use in power-saving applications. Perpetual motion plays no part in their operation. Those who scoff at something like this should first do the work and test the results, something well within the ability of most school kids, but seemingly beyond the reach of physicists. 54
Alternate Energy and Nikola Tesla
In the midst of a particularly hard winter, I am reminded of the obscene profits of the utility companies, earned on the backs of those less privileged – the old, sick, infirm and poor who give-up meals in order to pay their electricity bills or even become ill and eventually die, indirectly from the ravages of cold. With this in mind, I turn my attention to the physicists who are the mediate accomplices to the crime of denying alternate energy supplies in order to support the theory that put-paid to their development.
This has a long history that goes back to the end of the nineteenth century and Tesla’s lab, starved of cash that was rightfully his to use in researching lossless energy transmissions. His paymasters were the same utility companies, they wanted to stop his work because they feared loss of revenue due to the difficulty of metering the supply – a problem that Tesla would have solved. Tesla’s name was blackened and he was called a madman, his patent for radio was awarded to Marconi until it was recovered in 1943, after his demise. He became a non-person until recently his name reappeared as the person who made the technology of our time possible.
He was removed from the history of science to make-way for a theory that he opposed, a theory that denied what he called the “wheel-works of nature” – “that would drive industry without the need for coal and oil”. Something that is laughed to scorn by today’s science, but something that worked and was seen to work by many in Tesla’s day. It cannot work now because the laws of thermodynamics say so, even though these same laws have been manipulated to mean that which science finds more comfortable. Tesla’s ideas were excluded and remain excluded to this day, along with the ideas of several other pioneers of cheap, clean, energy systems.
Physicists are not ignorant of this, but they are well paid and wish to keep their jobs for fear of becoming one of the old and sick who can’t afford to pay their utility bills.
The purpose of these energy pages is to show the illogicality of such thinking and offer the opportunity to some to think for themselves about the feasibility of past rejected energy systems.
“Broadcast Power” Nikola Tesla
“Lost Science” by Gerry Vassilatos
Limited permission granted to use this material in other presentations.
ISBN 0-932813-75-5 1999
The book describes just how Tesla achieved his lossless power transmissions and it’s not difficult to understand how he did it:
RADIANT ELECTRICITY Gerry Vassilatos
“Through successive experimental arrangements, Tesla discovered several facts concerning the production of his effect. First, the cause was undoubtedly found in the abruptness of charging. It was in the switch closure, the very instant of “closure and break”, which thrust the effect out into space. The effect was definitely related to time, IMPULSE time. Second, Tesla found that it was imperative that the charging process occurred in a single impulse. No reversal of current was permissible, else the effect would not manifest. In this, Tesla made succinct remarks describing the role of capacity in the spark-radiative circuit. He found that the effect was powerfully strengthened by placing a capacitor between the disrupter and the dynamo. While providing a tremendous power to the effect, the dielectric of the capacitor also served to protect the dynamo windings. Not yet sure of the process at work in this phenomenon, Tesla sought the empirical understanding required for its amplification and utilization. He had already realized the significance of this unexpected effect. The idea of bringing this strange and wondrous new phenomenon to its full potential already suggested drilling new possibilities in his mind. He completely abandoned research and development of alternating current systems after this event intimating that a new technology was about to unfold.” 55
High frequency DC pulses, a spark-gap and a capacitor is all that is needed.
Tesla’s broadcast power is often classified as pseudoscience, but a glance at its history will show that it worked and was observed working during his lifetime. The reason we don’t see it working today is because of denial and myth-making by the media supported by academia. For a demonstration of Tesla’s longitudinal electromagnetic waves – the transmission of direct current through space see Konstantin Meyl below:
“Potential vortex, newly discovered properties of the electric field are fundamentally changing our view of the physical world.”
Prof. Dr.-Ing. Konstantin Meyl
“In his books,… Prof. Meyl chooses Faraday’s law of induction, as a hypothetical factor and proves that the electric vortex is a part thereof. This potential vortex propagates scalar-like (waves) through space and is a longitudinal electric wave whose properties have already been established a century ago by Nicola Tesla. This phenomenon can now be studied and examined thanks to a fully functional replica designed by Prof. Meyl.” 56
“A demonstration of Nikola Tesla’s theory of the transmission of power without the use of wires using EM ‘Scalar Waves’. Demonstration by Professor Dr. Konstantin Meyl of Germany.
Transmission of Power Without Wires (Scalar Waves)” 57
Top 5 Free Energy Technologies Unfolding Now in January 2012
“Off the radar of the mainstream media, many futuristic energy technologies are positioning themselves to change the course of human civilization. These breakthroughs herald a fantastic future in which energy scarcity is a thing of the past.” 58
Those who think that only academic science, with its hundred year old theories, can be right will gain nothing from reading these pages. The idea that Tesla is wrong because science says so is unproductive and flies in the face of all of those who have found merit in his ideas by careful study and experimentation.
Someone who sets out on a journey absolutely certain that they are going the wrong way will never reach their destination.
Free Energy Suppression:
“There have been numerous free energy claims over the years. Many, such as those implying perpetual motion or those based on extracting zero-point energy, are viewed as impossible according to accepted physical laws…Others, such as cold fusion, while not fundamentally impossible, are not accepted by the scientific community. Conspiracy advocates therefore claim that the scientific community has controlled and suppressed research into alternative avenues of energy production via the institutions of peer review.” 59
The Wiki article treats these important subjects as if they are a conspiracy theory joke, forgetting that the very science it is supporting is claiming a not too distant future disaster, due to our burning of fossil fuels. It is absolutely true that science has no serious research efforts to find an answer to the energy problem and we are fobbed-off with stories of wind power and solar panels.
Not forgetting that wind power is our oldest source of energy and not a gift from modern science. Science, as always, is supporting the vested interests of those who provide funding for science to maintain the status quo.
There is no need for a conspiracy where academic science is concerned as it is stuck in its own mire and prevented from considering alternatives by modern theories that deny the existence of alternative sources of power. One entrenched physicist tells me that those who make claims for alternative energy sources never produce the goods. But, it must be remembered, and I make no apology for repeating, that research, development and marketing are all required to bring a new technology into general use. This is expensive and those with the cash will, before spending on such a project, consult the “experts”. To them, of course, the experts are the academic physicists, the very same characters who are determined to debunk, kill-off, any advance that will threaten their comfortable life, perpetual hot fusion projects and entrenched theories. Creativity and inventions, not done according to the fixed rules of science are now called fraudulent trickery. It is this circular process that prevents progress.
Perpetual motion is impossible as it would require energy from nowhere, from nothing, and all of the energy I write about is from somewhere. A pipe driven through a dam will give free energy, but the scientists are saying that according to theory there cannot be any water in the dam. It’s a little difficult to prove that something does not exist, as every scientist knows.