Talk:Free energy suppression conspiracy theory

A changing future: "What would constitute absolute proof?"

The last talk article "Here's the proof" and the rebuttal begs the question "What would those moderating this article consider constitutes absolute proof?"

I ask because I've been following a non-profit opensource group for over 2 1/2 years that has been building such a device. Is this article about 'free energy' as in as physics states "energy free to do work", or "something from nothing" which doesn't exist. Or is it stating that free energy (or overunity energy) as in energy from nature is a conspiracy theory. Or is it that those developing these devices are subject to harassment, skeptics, or possibly killed. Either way, other than being killed, this group could qualify as the proof needed for both the device, and harassment.

BTW, For now, I'm leaving the names out of the discussion. So, what constitutes proof for a rewrite of the original article: Proof of the device, and proof of conspiracy in action?

Initially they (the group) provided the Tesla patent which was the basis for the improved generator that would be built, the basic modifications to the patent, a forum for discussion for those interested in such a device, and a promise: "all the plans and research will be opensourced, without patent, and freely available to everyone." They have held to this agreement, although admittedly and for valid reasons extremely skittish as the project nears completion. The conspiracy is no theory if once the device is built, and substantial proof exists to show people conspiring.

Using an modified inductance generator producing Reactive Power (VARS), in July 2014 they initially got 800W output from 1kW REAL, and realized ultimately they needed more than resonance. One year later, the device was able to output 5kW VARS from 1kW real once properly tuned and conditioned. Although not the solution, it was a milestone. As expected, the conversion from VARS to REAL power would be the biggest hurdle, although achieving overunity in VARS is significant! From July 2015 through May 2016 progress was slow but progress existed. More and more pressure was placed on the family, houses lost, laboratories burned, etc. Nevertheless, the family and supporters once more in hiding have been releasing the building plans, research and information on the Reactive to Real Power converter. The claim is that four methods have been found to convert VARS to Real Watts, they have chosen the cheapest.

The claim is that the generator has reached the last phase, more information and plans to follow. The output power expectations have dropped from initially a 10:1 overunity to approximately 3:1 overunity (nothing to be ashamed of), with hope for more power with further research. China has been involved in this from the start, claiming a vested interest. (From posts I can attest to this) as well as, to my knowledge of many other countries being involved, I know of 5 based on forums. There is also claims that 100+ people are building the generators (I have seen proof of 'some' in the forums), and know of 3rd party vendor factories building the precision components, who are also accessible through the forums. The cost is dropping. There are also claims of NASA, Lockheed Martian, Los Alamos, and other agencies interested in the project, although this has been only very recently. (Since they developed the Reactive to Real power converter.

So, having been present from the start...I re-iterate: "What would those moderating this article consider constitutes absolute proof?" We know videos can be faked, so no videos. Some news agencies aren't considered trustworthy. So what does constitute proof. Are we only to accept proof from the megacorporation media, who may get advertising dollars from those who would not see this invention get into the world? So, what is absolute proof, and who can be trusted?

Personally, I think this organizations discovery that the only way not to be killed, by way of conspirators who want to see this invention suppressed was to make it non-profit, and opensource, free to all. I also think the world governments know the 'cat is out of the bag'; and there are plans to re-monetize the world banking system, and detach it from oil; there are certainly rumors. The recent plummeting oil prices could be an indicator, after all, how long will we be using oil, once a device like this gets out? The time to ask the question, "What proof do you need", and "Who is a trustworthy source" are valid questions in this day and age.

What proof is acceptable? Cyberchip (talk) 20:33, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Not to detract from your complaint, a conversion from VAR to REAL shouldn't be anyone's concern. All that is needed is a purely resistive load to realize a conversion inside of the resistance, or a full-bridge diode rectification to convert VAR to DC REAL.72.197.184.93 (talk) 18:17, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Category:Cold fusion and Category:Perpetual motion

An editor insists on restoring these categories. If anything, those categories would be subcategories of Category:Free energy (if it existed). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:48, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I just saw both of these fringey categories as applying to this topic - it should fall under both categories for that reason. Simonm223 (talk) 19:49, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

An animal isn't a kind of elephant, and "Free energy" isn't a kind of "cold fusion". Bhny (talk) 18:07, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I may have misinterpreted how the category tags are being used. I thought I was listing "free energy suppression" as a sub-set of articles related to those topics. Simonm223 (talk) 18:11, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I created Category:Free energy conspiracy theories, for articles related to the subject of this one; said category is a subcategory of Category:Perpetual motion, among others. Happy?--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 06:13, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Free energy suppression conspiracy theory. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=endc310437cd1cee1e7
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080214190405/http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2007/07/08/hydroman.ART_ART_07-08-07_A1_4V77MOK.html to http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2007/07/08/hydroman.ART_ART_07-08-07_A1_4V77MOK.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.dispatch.com/dispatch/export-content/sites/dispatch/multimedia/audio/2007/07/Robinette.mp3

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:15, 5 September 2017 (UTC)