Talk:Free energy suppression conspiracy theory/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Mythbusters

The article currently says "The American TV show MythBusters examined some methods of gathering free energy. These methods generally failed, were not cost-effective, or were too unwieldy to be feasible."

This seem to imply that some methods did in fact work. Is that really true, or should the text perhaps be rephrased.

The episode description on Mythbusters site says they made a very small version of the "Minto Wheel," and it rotated, but it did not produce much torque. "Minto Wheels" are simple, they're composed of several huge versions of Drinking bird mounted on a hub, where the lower bulbs dip into chilled water while the upper bulbs are warmed either by the environment or by the sun.

But something seems dishonest here. If they built a tiny version, and then they complain that the energy output is tiny, that's a very blatent straw-man argument. Such things are SOP for those with strong emotional bias. By not performing a fair trial they end up looking silly. Note well: the Minto Wheel probably doesn't put out useful amounts of energy. But to show that this is true, they have to perform a fair test. Anything less is manipulative pseudo-science. If they weren't going to give it a fair test (by building an enormous mechanism with hundreds of gallons of propane,) then they should have picked some other easier claim to debunk. --Wjbeaty 00:19, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, no. If the Minto Wheel is like a Drinking Bird it is not a free energy device other than in the conventional sense - it uses temperature differences to drive itself, and so is in the same category as solar, wind or water powered devices. To get it to work one would have to heat one end of the device - solar power would do the job of course but is a Minto Wheel the most efficient way of using solar power?

Exile 14:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

As I recall, all devices failed utterly. Except for the wheel, which worked, but worked so badly as to be pointless (to few revolutions per minute to power anything).

perfectblue 16:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

You're all missing the point, it's not a question of producing useful amounts - free energy doesn't exist at any physical scale, large or small. No device of ANY size will ever provide any level of free energy because perpetual motion is impossible.

If a device, even a tiny one, produced perpetual motion using itself as an energy source, that would break fundamental scientific law and be one of the biggest scientific discoveries of all time. But it won't happen because all devices suffer from friction of some kind (atmospheric, mechanical etc) and the heat lost in the friction will gradually slow the device to a stop.

NONE of the devices on mythbusters worked because none of them continued to function for an indefinite amount of time. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.146.47.250 (talk) 11:57, 14 April 2007 (UTC).

I'm not even certain what point you're trying to make, but we're mostly talking about over-unity devices here, not perpetual motion machines. A perpetual motion machine uses an initial burst of energy to start it and then (hypothetically) uses its own motion to create the energy needed to reset itself and start over. Eg a ball dropping and using the energy from the fall to lift itself back up again and then repeating indefinitely. Which is impossible because some energy would be lost in each cycle and the achine would either stop or require another burst of energy to keep it working.

An over unity device is a hypothetical device that can tap into an as yet unexploited source of energy. EG a device that could use harness fluctuations in the earth magnetic field, or phase transition the energy differential from a vacuum. 1 of the devices on Mythbusters was supposed to be over-unity (the g strain amplifier), one was renewable energy (the Minto Wheel. A simple solar generator) and the third device was just exploiting the principle of induction which doesn't count as it's exploiting energy that you've already created somewhere else (it's a form of recycling).

perfectblue 17:46, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

About the Mythbusters Bedini motor; He would have been exited to help them but mister Bedini was never asked about anything. They apparently did need the help of an MIT 'expert' to build a simple motor. Bedini had to find out by seeing it on TV, it was obvious to him the collector magnets where missing. The MIT professor apparently thought that waving a coil in the air was going to generate free energy? Or maybe that's what they wanted you to think huh? Mr Bedini tried to contact Mithbusters. Up to this day they haven't answered to him. Sadly, that's how free energy suppression is done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaby de wilde (talk • contribs) 19:21, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Bedini is a fraud. Check out his website sometime (http://www.bedini.com/). He sells "compact disc clarifiers" which are another impossibility. — NRen2k5 18:03, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Large deletion?

Umm... removing huge chunks of text without any discussion? That's very close to vandalism. Apparently PeR is not familiar with this particular conspiracy theory, since the text he removed is central to the crackpot claims being described. They're not talking about wind/solar devices being suppressed, they're talking about the suppression of purported energy sources currently unknown to physics... the critical issue being that the basement inventors claiming to have discovered (for example) direct-conversion nuclear power are distinct from the basement inventors claiming to have built perpetual motion machines. "Free energy suppression" is a longrunning piece of inventor lore, while "perpetual motion suppression" is not. I've restored the removed text, but changed the labels from "over-unity devices" to the more common: "free energy devices." --Wjbeaty 03:32, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Some clarification: what do inventors mean by "free energy device?" No, they don't mean a device which provides energy at zero fuel costs. They don't regard solar cells or wind power generators as being free energy devices. In the crackpot inventors community, a "Free energy device" is a machine which uses principles outside of contemporary physics in order to tap into a (perhaps unknown) energy source. For example, in the usual way they use the term, a cold fusion reactor would be a "free energy device." But if such a device actually worked, then as soon as the physics community accepted its existence and started extending modern theory to cover cold fusion, then the device ceases to be a "free energy device." Likewise a radium-powered pinwheel in 1890 would be a free energy device, since it would be inexplicable by the physics of the day.

On the other hand, these sorts of inventions lie on a spectrum extending from "unknown physics" to "obvious perpetual motion." Some inventors claim to be extracting energy from water by triggering the hydrogen electrons to decay to a previously unknown lower energy level. Other inventors claim to be extracting thermal motion from the environment and using it to power an engine. The former invention is not a perpetual motion machine, while the latter is clearly a "PM of the second kind." Various free energy inventors claim all sorts of things, from intentionally triggering the decay of radioactive isotopes, to tapping into the quantum ZPE flux, to gathering previously unknown types of cosmic rays. The major theme is always the same: extracting energy by a method which is outside of contemporary physics. --Wjbeaty 04:18, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

"Over-unity device" is a common crackpot term for what scientists refer to as a "perpetual motion device of the first kind". That is a device which produces more energy that is input, in violation of the currently known laws of physics. There is already plenty of information about this in the perpetual motion article.

I think it is important to keep an article focused on its topic. The topic of this article is "free energy suppression". Discussions about "free energy devices" belong in the perpetual motion article. (It might be a good idea for this idea to summarize that one, however.)

Also, making an improvement to an article is never vandalism, even if other editors don't consider it an improvement. Read WP:BOLD WP:FAITH. --PeR 09:30, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

How about this? You say that the claimed "free energy devices" are either perpetual motion devices or based on cold fusion. Then it should be sufficient to include links to (and perhaps brief summaries of) those two articles which already exist and are in considerably better shape than this article. --PeR 09:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Deleting unsourced quantum physics statement

I will delete the following statement from the article:

It is a fundamental tenet of quantum theory that particles (specifically, particles and their complements or anti-particles) are constantly being created, literally out of vacuum. Meanwhile, other particles and anti-particles interfere with one another and are annihilated. The net result over time is zero, however at any precise instant the value may be non-zero. One idea is that if it were possible to interfere with the annihilation part of the process, a net gain of mass or energy over time could be obtained. Thus "zero-point energy" is not fringe science but rather an established part of quantum theory.

The fact that the statement is unsourced and highly controversial is enough to warrant deletion. However, I will try to explain why I think it is wrong.

The uncertainty principle states that energy can created if it is annihilated after a very short time. Mathematically,

$\Delta t\Delta E\geq {\frac {\hbar }{2}}$.

If it were possible to "interfere with the annihilation part of the process" for even a millisecond, then $\Delta E$ would be much smaller than the energy required to create even the tiniest particle. --PeR 21:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

This article has serious issues

It seems poorly written and has a lot of POV randomly interspersed into it. I'm going to probably make some pretty major edits to it once I'm more awake. Titanium Dragon 19:13, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Major Edits

I made a number of large edits in an attempt to return the article to a neutral point of view. I deleted a number of extraneous paragraphs, made clear who claimed what, and generally tried to make the article more legible. I did not make any attempt to source the article, and it still is in need of sourcing - I know a lot of this stuff from conspiracy nuts and anti-hoax websites, but I'm feeling too tired to look it up right now. I may get around to it later. Titanium Dragon 06:06, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

It would help if you could cite your sources. As is, this page appears to be a huge WP:OR violation. I know much of it to be true, but it needs sources attached to it to verify everything.

perfectblue 16:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I just nuked a number of paragraphs from the article, moved several around, and generally streamlined the article. Titanium Dragon 14:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Looks like Reddi took my suggestion; thanks. I'm working on going back through Reddi's edits and trying to sort things out. Thanks for the help Reddi; looks like you found a lot of sources. Titanium Dragon 15:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Global revert of Reddi's changes

I've reverted Reddi's recent changes [1]. He just tried to turn this article by 180° to an advocacy page suggesting that there is a free energy suppression. As he did spread his changes into 98 single edits, I was less than motivated to hunt for some good ones to keep. --Pjacobi 17:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

It seems that you are not "motivated to hunt" for any references in alot of articles, just remove cited material. J. D. Redding 14:50, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Reddi, if you're sure I'm mis-interpreting your changes, pls just revert back. I won't to start an edit war over this. But please minimize the pleading, why "free energy" may work anyway. --Pjacobi 17:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I cannot revert back, because others have contributed to it. You didn't try to improve, just remove.

Solar cells, a renewable "free energy", do work. J. D. Redding

Solar cells are free energy in a sense, in that the source of energy to do the work, solar energy, has negligable feedstock costs. However, they are expensive, but readily available and you more than "break even" on them, so it is hard to claim any suppression of them. Titanium Dragon 15:06, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Solar cells are free energy technology. Highly efficient solar cells are reportedly being suppressed. I will get a citation later for this, but it has been in sources (this goes along with the conspiracy of the 200-mpg Carburetor). Current cell available technology is expensive. J. D. Redding 15:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Solar cells are usually classified as renewable energy. --Pjacobi 15:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that free energy refers to both the perpetual motion machines/zero point energy/(insert pseudoscientific way to seperate fools from their money) as well as energy with negligable feedstock costs. Obviously they aren't the same thing, and "advocates" of free energy intentionally mix the two. Titanium Dragon 16:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I had to go through the article with a hatchet to fix it and make it agree with the NPOV and N:OR, and it still doesn't completely comply with the latter due to lack of citations. While citing sources for their claims would be good, avoid weasel words and don't try and advocate that it actually occurs; rather, present both sides' arguments from a neutral point of view. You seem to know about the subject though, so your knowledge could prove valuable. Titanium Dragon 22:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Ironically, it's the anti-conspiracy section that needs the most work and the most citations. It's usually the other way round.

perfectblue 13:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Notable Figures

These should probably be integrated into the rest of the article, possibly into the introduction. I'd prefer that the introduction be split up into a real introduction, then a body section combining the rest of the intro and integrating the companies which claim to produce free energy devices and people who claim to have exposed the conspiracy. Titanium Dragon 14:31, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Theory analysis

http://www.phact.org/e/dennis2.html Examining claims by Dennis Lee of UCSA BWT & ITEC that the government suppresses inventors.

This site would be great in trying to discern the "hype" from the "right". J. D. Redding 20:09, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Is this an RS? Looks like a random web page to me. Titanium Dragon 20:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Eric Krieg is known a RS in perpetual motion circles. His history was the basis of the history of perpetual motion machines article here at wikipeda (see References section). He is a founder the Philadelphia Association of Critical Thinking (PhACT). He is also a skeptic. J. D. Redding 21:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, he is known as a stalker he will tell you nothing works without lifting a finger. One of those pseudoskeptics.

John Bedini claims to have a free energy device, but seems closed to having competent independent people investigate John Bedini's claims a An independent writing on Can you get excess power with magnets and wires? http://www.phact.org/e/dennis4.html

Do you not have anything better do with you time, it must be fun to have everybody just hate you for what you are. The truth of the matter is you have never done any work on any of these systems. You claim to know what your talking about, but do not. Here is my challenge to you, go pull my patents make the machine, by yourself no person helping you "except you" do not change a thing because you think it's better. Then dis-prove my patent as to why it does not work as I say. Here is your chance "big boy" disprove the batteries and what is going on in the machine. http://www.nuscam.com/eric_krieg_challenge.htm

Seems John has been more then reasonable no? More obvious as this the suppression doesn't get I'm afraid. ok, maybe mythbusters.(Gaby de wilde 20:32, 1 September 2007 (UTC))

I forgot to add he does have a handsome list of inventors there. To bad he doesn't share his information about them. (Gaby de wilde 20:35, 1 September 2007 (UTC))

I think I've seen this movie before. Crackpot challenges Skeptic to reproduce his invention. Skeptic reproduces Crackpots invention, and SURPRISE!!! IT DOESN'T WORK! Crackpot then ridicules Skeptic. It's a fallacy; a lose-lose proposition. — NRen2k5 18:17, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

On strict interpretation of WP:NOR

I'd like to gave one example, why I'd consider this article to be in borderline violation of WP:NOR. From the article:

Believers in the theory claim companies bribe governments with millions of dollars to ensure that free energy devices stay out of the public market. Advocates of the conspiracy theory claim means of suppression include buying the patent of the free energy device from the inventor or his family, suing the inventor or patent holder, and even murdering the inventors of free energy devices or associated efficiency technologies.<ref>[http://peakenergy.blogspot.com/2006/09/ultracapacitor-conspiracy.html An Ultracapacitor Conspiracy]? (cf., Conspiracy theories about oil companies buying up energy technologies that threaten their market then killing them off are a dime a dozen, and generally relate to the 1960's and 1970's, particularly around the time of the oil shocks.)</ref></nowiki>

So, what's given here is a blog of one believer as source. This is (a) unreliable source and (b) a primary source. It would be a valid source for an article on itself -- but lack of notability and not meeting the relevance criteria for blogs would prohibit the creation of that article.

For an encyclopedia article about free energy suppression it's the wrong kind of source -- essentially some journalist or researcher has to write a paper/book/article about free energy suppression and picking up some of these primary sources by his editorial judgement and then his output would be of the type required for an encyclopedia.

Pjacobi 21:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

This IS NOT an article on free energy suppression, it's an article on the conspiracy of free energy suppression. The purpose of the page is not to document actual suppression, only the belief that it is being suppressed. This means that the primary category for a source must either be its individual notability and whether it is a representative example. WP:NOR still applies, but your points A and B are mostly mute as it's an example of a single man's thinking not of something factual.

perfectblue 07:10, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

You are misunderstanding the problem. The idea of taking this as factual doesn't enter here. You may have misunderstood, that I'm addressing the problems of sourcing the conspiracy theory. But even that cannot (should not) be done, by sampling together primary sources of adherents and doinmg our own analysis. --Pjacobi 22:12, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

---

first, Believers in the theory claim companies bribe governments with millions of dollars to ensure that free energy devices stay out of the public market has a fact tag!

second, as to the Advocates of the conspiracy theory claims reguarding patents (eg buyng them out), is known and is general knowldge. I am looking for sources to cite it (this is one to address the statement temporarily!). Other sources are available (and will be provided a.s.a.p.), that is if you don't just remove the information, as you seem to prone to do. J. D. Redding

(PS., you could move the citaitons out and reinsert the a "fact" tag [ciation needed] if you want. But, again, this was not the last ciations that would be added therer. J. D. Redding)

I don't believe that much in "fact" tags and I hope I can restrain myself from messing around in the article. I wanted only to point, what has to be done in the long run, to make this a truly encyclopedic article. Fine that we seem to agree here. --Pjacobi 21:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Its not general knowledge; there aren't any real examples of the issue. The problem is, of course, if you had the technology to make a car that was, say, twice as efficient as a modern vehicle, that'd be worth billions of dollars; it'd be impossible to buy out the patent from someone because it'd be uneconomical, and anyone who develops an engine that efficient is doing it for production purposes.

The problem is that what is assumed to occur and what actually occurs are entirely seperate; free energy repression isn't "real", and what is seen as repression is the result of economics and bad decisions. Electric vehicles are a good example; they were very poorly marketed initially. Only now are they starting to become viable again, almost two decades after their introduction, because another company decided to get into the market (plus, fuel prices have risen considerably) and that company doesn't rely on fixing cars as a major source of income either (electric vehicles have fewer parts which wear out, and consequently their lower upkeep costs will hurt a company which profits on all ends). Fundamentally, if you could make more money doing something else, generally you will do so if you can.

While occaisionally someone will do something somewhat shady (the streetcar conspiracy, for instance, as well as the companies fighting against public transportation), generally if it is economic you'll go for the cheaper route. The biggest barrier to alternative energy sources and mass transit are capital costs, and until people and governments are willing to pony up the cash up front it will continue to be a problem, as the capital costs will take a very long time to drop, and may only increase in the case of mass transit due to increased property values.

Claims of special free energy technology, though, are universally fraudulent; simply put, you could make huge quantities of money by marketing such technologies and potentially dominate the market by driving all your competitors out of business with your patents. That this doesn't happen isn't the result of some great conspiracy but is simply because these special free energy technologies don't exist. Hydroelectric plants have high up-front costs; wind farms and solar energy are cheaper but produce less energy. While distributed generation is probably the ultimate future of energy, barring clean and super-efficient fusion plants, it has a large buy-in cost and is a major barrier to its existance. If you're willing to invest 10,000 in solar panels, they'll pay off in less than a decade (well, in California), but all too many people are unwilling to invest that. There are no "free energy devices" which have been bought out; they simply don't exist. Zero point energy doesn't exist, and all such pseudoscientific devices tend to either be scams, fraudulent, hoaxes, or simply the result of someone not understanding a process and thinking they're creating energy (or at least not losing any) when they're not. Titanium Dragon 01:17, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

This page is about the belief that there is a conspiracy. This topic should be treated as an urban myth page not a science/fact based page. It's a fact that people believe in the conspiracy which is what we must illustrate, not whether there actually is a conspiracy.

"The problem is, of course, if you had the technology to make a car that was, say, twice as efficient as a modern vehicle, that'd be worth billions of dollars;"

But it would take millions of dollars in research and development to bring it to the market, and the gas industry would do all that they could in order to slow/prevent. Think about it. Haven't you ever heard stories about companies like Walmart (as a generic example) building a big new store in an area and then funding the local environmental/Ma and Pa business groups, so that they can protest against development or re-zoning in the area so as to prevent competitors from building new stores.

perfectblue 07:22, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

If you have the engine, you've already won; as I pointed out, captial costs are a major barrier.

In any event, no, I haven't heard those stories.

And yes, it is about the conspiracy and people believing in it, but saying "people believe in free energy suppression" is just not enough for a page. It should include arguments for and against it, ect. as per other conspiracy theory pages. Titanium Dragon 15:49, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Nobody's stopping you from putting any of that in. My point is that we don't need to source the pro-conspiracy to peer review as it's about their beliefs not the validity of their science. However, with this said, we do need to be more careful in sourcing anything using science or economics against the believers (a loony only has to be verifiable as spouting nonsence, but you must be suitable qualified to refute or expose the nonsense).

perfectblue 17:50, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

See also

OK, i know this is minutae, but regarding the see also section, I think its a little cluttered and unfocused. I originally put Rudolph Diesel in there, because the circumstances surrounding his death are very similar to the common format of the guy invents free energy source and gets dissappeared rumours that circulate, and I think its totally relevant. I think Great American Streetcar Scandal is relevant because its a totally factual account of suppression of a more efficient use of energy by the energy industry. history of perpetual motion machines makes sense to me too, but this is not an article about perpetual motion per se, and the rest of the perpetual motion links belong in that article. Also, I'm not sure what Preston Tucker has to do with anything. His engine may have been a little more efficient than the standard of the time, but it didnt present anywhere near the threat to the oil industry that diesel's vegetable oil engine did. This article is about suppression, so im removing the tucker link, and replacing diesel. —popefauvexxiii 19:38, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

In Tucker: The Man and His Dream, about Preston Tucker:

The film [...] story concerns Preston Tucker's (Jeff Bridges) dream of making a safe and reliable family automobile - with technological innovations that were rather radical at the time [... the] ideas were considered revolutionary at the time, and as Tucker began to make his car a reality, the powerful Detroit automobile makers and the authorities in Washington, D.C. worked together to ruin him.

J. D. Redding 20:08, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

So, I see the suppression angle, but what does that have to do with energy? The other two links I mentioned are directly related to both. —popefauvexxiii 03:42, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

You do realize that film is heavily fictionalized, right? The article on the actual car does not indicate it was "suppressed"; it looks a lot like a typical company that makes a bad business decision and pays for it. Titanium Dragon 15:21, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

What is this article about?

Last time I looked at this article, the "free energy" that was being suppressed related to various perpetual motion, "zero point energy", cold fusion and other (scientifically dubious) inventions. The first part of the article now reads as though it's primarily mainstream renewable energy sources which are being suppressed, e.g. solar energy, wind. Describing these as "free energy" is peculiar, and contradicts the second part of the article - which says, for example, "There are, as of April 2007, no commercial power generation entities or businesses which sell or utilize "free energy" technology".

We need to establish what this article is about: mainstream renewables or "alternative science". At the moment, it makes no sense. Is anyone familiar with the actual claims of the people propounding this theory? LeContexte 10:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

There is a lack of reliable secondary sources. Without these, I fear, the article will drift in any direction over time. --Pjacobi 13:43, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

The conspiracy is supposed to cover any form of energy other than mainstream gas and nuclear. Suppression of super efficient solar power, suppression of zero point power, suppression of 2000000000 MPG auto engines. The whole works. It's just that the renewable energy angle tends to be less kookish.

perfectblue 14:42, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

A lot of the people who claim their inventions are repressed are the fraudsters who make perpetual motion machines, but there are others (see films like Who Killed the Electric Car?) who believe in free energy suppression (though, ultimately, that movie comes to the conclusion that it wasn't really suppression per se so much as a series of bad decisions by pretty much everyone but the battery makers). Titanium Dragon 15:02, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Do they really claim there's a conspiracy to kill solar, wind, tidal and hydroelectric power? These are increasingly common throughout Europe and the US. If this really is the claim, then the article needs to be radically rewritten LeContexte 07:36, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I actually think the article needs to be split into two articles, as it is becoming increasingly clear that this is an obstacle. There needs to be one article for the alleged suppression of alternative energy sources, and another about the alleged suppression of PMMs and similar fraudulent devices. It is forcing too much hedging to have the two together, and the groups supporting them are rather distinct. Titanium Dragon 10:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Totally agree with a split. Perpetual motion machines and things like wind/solar are two different topics, and the article becomes a mess by trying to cover them together. --Minderbinder 13:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Forget PPM, it's already got it's own page. This page should be about the belief that over-unity and super efficiency is being stifled. The rest is to fragmented.

perfectblue 14:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

"Over-unity" is a modern synonym for "perpetual motion machine". What is "super effiency"? --Pjacobi 15:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

No, they are different. As I wrote above:

A perpetual motion machine uses an initial burst of energy to start it and then (hypothetically) uses its own motion to create the energy needed to reset itself and start over. Eg a ball dropping and using the energy from the fall to lift itself back up again and then repeating indefinitely. It's self contained and self perpetuating, which is impossible because some energy would be lost in each cycle and the achine would either stop or require another burst of energy to keep it working.

An over unity device is a hypothetical device that can tap into an as yet unexploited source of energy. EG a device that could use harness fluctuations in the earth magnetic field, or phase transition the energy differential from a vacuum. Zero-point energy is probably best documented hypothesis from a scientific perspective

"Super efficiency" is just that. The fabled (and impossible) 200MPG carb is probably the best known example. Basically, the conspiracy goes that big business is suppressing technology that would let you drive coast to coast on a single tank of gas, or solar cells that would let you power your home on a single panel. That kind of thing.

We need to forget about arguing that the conspiracy is real/not real and just get on with documenting what people believe and why they believe it. Once we've sorted out the most notable beliefs, then we will have a solid structure to work from. This page is getting too much like a pseudoscience standoff, which is never good.

perfectblue 17:20, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

The text in the box is total and utter bullshit. Tapping into a known energy source temperature or pressure variations is sometimes counted as pseudo or fale perpetuum mobile -- it's obviously not over unity, as the mechanism is understood and the efficency below one. Zero point energy is not available as energy source, because it is by definition the minimum energy state of the system and even if higher than zero, the system can't transit to lower state. There are some theories holding the the QFT vacuum is not a global but only a local minimum -- in that case tapping this energy is very remotely possible, only that it would cause a catastrophic chain reaction. --Pjacobi 18:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll take this opportunity to remind you that we all observe WP:CIVILITY here. I'll also take the opportunity to remind you that we are talking about a conspiracy, not about science. It doesn't have to be scientifically accurate to be believed. - perfectblue 07:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

So, without getting into the merits of the technologies in question, is there a consensus that there should be separate articles on (a) alleged suppression of technologies using established principles but which are renewable or use non-fossil fuel technologies, e.g. electric car (actually the only example I'm aware of); and (b) suppression of technology that uses principles not generally accepted by mainstream science (e.g. most of the stuff in this article) LeContexte 10:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

It all depends on what you call free energy and what you call suppression. IMHO there are so many different free energy machines it's just hilarious. Knowing that makes the reason for suppressing them down all to obvious. If some one is getting stalked then you just take their word for it.

The main criticism of the theory is that these devices are absent in the market because they do not and cannot work.

Here the excuse to ignore it is the ignorance it self. The tool of suppression is the argument the devices don't exist, but this is also the excuse for never looking at them at the same time. We cant have it both ways? Either the machines don't work or the theory is wrong. We cant assume the machines must work because the theory has to be wrong just like we cant assume the theory must be right because the machines cant work. Most people will continue not believing it's real even after being confronted with such device. They will stand there screaming about the laws of thermodynamics. People like the inventors twin brother, or their wife. Not very likely to convince a wikipedian if you cant convince your wife now it is? The suppression is not so much executed by special interest groups as by the mainstream dogma. The dogma is however much supported by the special interests.

Signs of real professional free energy suppression you can see here on wikipedia. Every actor in history is worthy of his own page but weird inventions not confirmed by mainstream science (working or not is irrelevant) apparently cant have a page here. The few free energy machines still having their own wikipedia page are full of rant how crackpots try to destroy the laws of thermodynamics and how nutterish they are, not your usual trolling but the work of experts. Take the introduction of the Water fuel cell. "the source of this addition energy has not been scientifically identified therefore the theory is treated with skepticism." There was barely any theory, it just worked! And it has not been investigated. The way it's treated is not worthy of being in the description. An encyclopedia should not instruct it's readers behaviour? Tell me how to treat things huh? "such a practice conforms to the parameters of perpetual motion, hence conclusive scientific investigation would either verify violation of thermodynamic law or identify the source of claimed additional energy." But if there isn't going to be any scientific analysis - ever! then the laws of thermodynamics are nonsense. If the best scientists can do is preach the laws then it's just not very likely they are right about the topic. Then it says: "At least one car prototype, reportedly powered by a water fuel cell, has been assembled." HUH what? but but but?? You know what I mean? "Meyer's claims about the Water Fuel Cell and the car that it powered were found to be fraudulent by an Ohio court in 1996." His wiki use to say http://web.archive.org/web/20050106215257/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_Meyer "It failed to work during a required demonstration of the water-fueled car. An Ohio court found Stanley Meyer guilty of fraud in a case brought against him by disgruntled investors." So he was scammed by his own investors. What kind of person would do that with a known to work invention? And why was this important information deleted? Then it says: Stanley Meyer was granted patents in the United States and abroad starting in 1989. The verifiability, and scientific basis, of the patents are controversial. Now I know the water motor patents where granted after a working model was displayed. You can see it in the application number. There is no other way to get a patent on an electrolysis cell. Because of those laws of thermodynamics you know? You do know about those right? You can see free energy suppression live at work when you see that the world famous American inventor Stanley Meyer was not worthy of his own wikipedia page. It's obvious he cant have a page because that would violate conservation of energy right? Paul Pantone does have his own page where again the working of his device is denied by no-witness, The GEET page however describes a Hindi film? BTW Paul was also scammed by his investors? ha-ha? Yull Brown is also not worthy of his own page? Makes it kind of hard to write about free energy suppression when the suppressed and murdered inventors are not allowed the light of day? What about William A. Rhodes? Dennis klein then? no? Isaac de Rivaz? Daniel Dingle? etc etc?? At least we still have the Oxyhydrogen page right? haha? This is how free energy suppression is done. I would love to make a page for each one of them with most credible references but it's just not going to be allowed. The wall of propaganda is much to thick. I can think of better ways to kill myself. ha-ha here. I'll also take the opportunity to remind you that we are talking about a conspiracy, not about science. It doesn't have to be scientifically accurate to be believed.

So I believe this theory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaby de wilde (talk • contribs) 20:13, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Just look at what you wrote:

“ An Ohio court found Stanley Meyer guilty of fraud in a case brought against him by disgruntled investors." So he was scammed by his own investors. ”

Any rational English-speaking person would read the first sentence as stating that Meyer was defrauding his investors, rather than the other way around. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 02:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Keyword: rational. — NRen2k5 18:22, 9 November 2007 (UTC)