Talk:Free energy suppression conspiracy theory/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Gary McKinnon

I have removed Gary McKinnon because the claims were not supported by the reference. In the article cited, McKinnon claims he hacked the computer site because he had read the Disclosure Project and "knew that governments suppressed antigravity, UFO-related technologies, free energy or what they call zero-point energy.", but in fact only claims to have found pictures of UFO's. If you correct the section to reflect his actual claims, then it clearly doesn't belong in this article.Prebys (talk) 15:22, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Invalid references

Some the reference in the article needs to be cleaned up (currently 14,27 seem invalid) 86.145.175.176 (talk) 17:08, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

V for Vendetta

These days Conspiracy is the synonym for truth wikkipedia is bullshit for thinking that just by calling anything "A conspiracy" would make it one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.201.218.214 (talk) 10:11, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Delete Gordon Novel

I move to delete the Gordon Novel section as being non-notable. Basis:

• The Gordon Novel article has been deleted, and unlike Bearden, Novel is not associated with any free energy device in particular that would justify his continued inclusion here.
• Novel is a broad spectrum conspiracy theorist who has weighed in on just about every topic I can think of, from JFK to Waco. Free energy forms a very small part of his claims. If he is included under every topic on which he has pontificated, he will be one of the most cited people in WP.
• He is identified as "current", but I can't find anything from him more recent than about 5 years, and his website no longer exists.

That said, can someone come up with a more credible "current" case?Prebys (talk) 17:25, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Perpetual motion and planets

The planets are not an example of perpetual motion. Planets exist within a vacuum of space and are in fact slowing down every year, they meet little to no resistance because in a vacuum there is no air for them to slow. «Golgofrinchian» ∞talk∞ 12:36, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Someone tries to stick that in this or the Perpetual Motion article on a pretty regular basis. It's not even worth discussing.Thanks for reverting it.Prebys (talk) 14:25, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Yep - I agree. However, should the person who keeps sticking that claim into our article in wish to actually understand why his/her addition is incorrect, here is why: Planets exert tidal forces on the star that they orbit and the star exerts tidal forces in return. That produces heat and consumes kinetic/rotational energy that ultimately results in the planet becoming "tidally locked" to the star. Case in point is the planet Mercury which would have been spinning on its axis when the solar system was created - but now spins no more. Our moon is another example - it would once have been spinning but has now stopped with one side always facing the earth. Neither the moon nor Mercury was The moon wasn't remotely "perpetual". But beyond that, even if the planets did spin "perpetually" this isn't a source of "free energy". As soon as you find some way to extract energy, the planet would slow down as the energy was extracted from its store of rotational energy. Tidal energy is an example of that - it's pretty darned cheap - but definitely not "free". We have to be very precise in our terms in this article - so what you wrote was (a) flat out 100% untrue, (b) not at all relevant to "Free energy suppression", (which is the subject of this article), (c) not referenced (per WP:RS) and (d) is gonna get reverted very soon after you stick it back in again. SteveBaker (talk) 01:19, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Quick quibble: Mercury is in a 3:2 resonance and does not always present the same face to the sun, but everything else holds. - 2/0 (cont.) 05:36, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

It's an honest mistake. Those of us of a certain age learned that Mercury always kept the same face toward the sun well after the truth was known; in fact, they made kind of a big deal out of it. I definitely learned it all through grade school, in spite of the fact that the resonance was discovered when I was two. That's the problem with using textbooks instead of Wikipedia. I would bet you a non-trivial fraction of students are still learning it from teachers who are teaching from memory.Prebys (talk) 13:30, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Argh! My bad. I should have done a 'fact check' on that one. I can't blame it on teachers though - maybe the Asimov sci-fi stories. Of course a lot depends on your perspective. You could argue that the moon rotates once in every orbit...but in the case of both the moon and Mercury, an initial random rotation has settled into a rather precise 'resonance' that couldn't have come about by the chance angular momentum of the original materials from which they were formed...so we can be sure that their original rotational speed wasn't "perpetual". SteveBaker (talk) 13:58, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

It's a bit misleading term - "free energy". If using, I would favor "free in human, not physical sense". More scientific term is overunity, which is related to COP (more meaningful) rather than to the efficiency (widely used). The issue is not to bring energy out of nothing, but to convert an available source that is free and unlimited for humanity. A common example is an air conditioning that provides ~3 times more heat/cold than the electricity we're paying for. It doesn't produce it, but brings from/to the street, where it is free and unlimited (in the humanity scale) resource. The same goes for other overunity devices. As to "thermodynamics violation". Energy conservation refers to the closed systems only, but who said we're living in a closed system? Did anybody prove it? Moreover, everyday we're witnessing that we on Earth are NOT living in a closed system - a huge energy flux from sun constantly hits Earth producing life, weather, and all we're used to. Morevover, claiming "planets in vacuum" is not precisely scientific. A vacuum was never proved. Stephen Hawking in his "A Brief History of Time" says that there is a difference of few orders in the mass of universe that we can explain and one that should be according to astronomic observations. Where is this additional mass/energy? Without going into speculations, I would say that it puts a reasonable doubt in vacuum/closed system assumptions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.25.79.130 (talk) 16:48, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Although the solar system has an interplanetary medium it is not very dense and so would take very long timescales to have any impact. Free energy devices aren't about extracting energy from other locations they are about creating energy out of nothing and so are impossible. The existence or not of Dark Energy and Dark Matter has no impact on this discussion. Please note that precise and scientific aren't the same thing, we can approximate the interplanetary medium to be zero for a calculation and still be scientific. Anyway Wikipedia is not the correct place for a discussion. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:13, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Free Energy

'Free Energy' COMMONLY refers to wattage that is coming from a source that appears to give energy for nothing, often the source is just not generally understood science. Why is there a page on suppression but not the term itself? So much information now exists on this subject, videos, books, diagrams, demonstrations, and dedicated websites which explore the subject. (I can find articles 'UFO's, but not one for UFO suppression. UFO is a recognised term, but this also deals with the unknonw) Why does the wiki not document any of the types of free energy, in fact it almost completely ignores the real subject and talks about suppression instead. I also noted the articles makes some of early key players look like a joke. It does seem obvious to me that information on the wiki is being suppressed. Seb-Gibbs (talk) 00:15, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

(Moved to bottom of page - please add all new topics at the bottom.)

What are all of these free sources of energy? Why isn't the entire world using these free sources and thereby ending global warming at a stroke? Simple...They don't exist. Not one of these supposedly free sources of energy actually works - they can't possibly work. The laws of thermodynamics make that impossible. We do actually have an article on Perpetual motion - and that's what all "free energy" scams and misunderstandings would be...if they worked. SteveBaker (talk) 00:38, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I suppose if there -were- technologies being suppressed that wikipedia would have to follow that suppression beacuse of our reliance on reliable sources. But of course that's not a change you're going to see here. Why don't you try hitting the traditional media sources. If you get them to publish it, we can use it here. Or get those pesky mainstream scientists to accept some research on these energy sources, they're so annoying with their 'reproducable results' and 'peer review' . I'd also do a little self examiniation and wonder why you think that a website claiming perpetual motion is possible is proof, and ask why you aren't marrying a scientologist yeti on a UFO. According to the internet they're quite affectionate. Guyonthesubway (talk) 14:03, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Hey! No fair! Scientologists are real...all too real, actually.

Look, there are several possibilities here:

1. If free energy exists and is being suppressed and there is concrete proof of that suppression - then everyone would know about it. Suppression would therefore be ineffective and we'd all have free energy.

Ask yourself, what is concrete proof? There is stuff everywhere, at what point would you believe? After reseached it, watched it, or witnessed it, why do people edit here who no nothing on the subject?

1. If free energy exists and that fact is being effectively suppressed - then there would be nobody talking about the existence of free energy.

People are talk about it.

1. If free energy doesn't exist and no suppression is necessary - then people would be able to talk about it freely and yet there would be no proof of the existence of free energy.

If there was no suppression, why is the vast subject not even have a page on this in the wiki?

Clearly (1) isn't the case - there is no free energy machine that we're all using to run our homes, drive our cars or to power industry. Such a machine would be so valuable, it would be in use everywhere by now. If we don't have this machine, it's either being effectively suppressed - or it doesn't exist.

But claim (2) can't be true either. There are hundreds of websites, books, patents, YouTube videos - all claiming to be about free energy machines. If I Google for "Stan Meyer water car" - I get close to half a million hits! If they are trying to "suppress" this then "big oil" should fire their suppression guys because they are doing an absolutely terrible job!

That leaves us with (3). What we have around us. No proof of free actual, working free energy, lots of people talking about it, patenting it, putting up web sites and YouTube videos - and absolutely no proof that any of those things are being taken down.

Here, if we ignore whether its real or fake, there are hundreds of hits on the subject, but not one page in the wiki, does that not tell you something? Seb-Gibbs (talk) 08:21, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

We have an article about "Free energy suppression" because it's a common meme. We have lots of articles about common memes - whether they happen to be true or false. This one happens to be false.

SteveBaker (talk) 15:53, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Well... as a thought experiment, if I were covering up the McGuffin in question I'd make sure there were lots of fake scientists, scammers and generally unreputable folks in the industry. Then I'd quietly take care of anyone with the real thing. Stan Meyer could be the distraction while Arthur Freeberry is never heard of. Never heard of Arthur? See! its working! From that perspective, writing articles about Meyers is exactly what -they- want! Guyonthesubway (talk) 16:53, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Wow! You're right! There are absolutely no Google hits for "Arthur Freeberry"...it's all true! (I'd better use two thicknesses of tinfoil in my next hat). SteveBaker (talk) 17:02, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Maybe the problem here is that too many people edit this a page who no nothing on the subject. Why is so many user contribution on this page from people who dont know the subject?

Speaking for myself, I have a PhD in physics and have given public lectures on free energy scams, so I think I "no" something about the topic. If they're notable enough, subcategories of "free energy" have been given their own page. Examples include Water-fuelled cars, Motionless electromagnetic generator, or the more general category of Perpetual motion. Beyond that, as SteveBaker says, the unifying theme is the claim of overarching conspiracies to suppress such technologies. That said, a section of this article giving examples of free energy claims and pointing to the other articles might not be a bad idea, if it's properly written.Prebys (talk) 10:01, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi Prebys, seems your the only person who knows something; Yes people have being making scams out of this, but I'm talking about the real work that has been done over the last couple of years. You seem to be only aware of a tiny number of devices. If you are interested in spending some time in traveling to see some real devices I can point you in the right direction. Are you aware of the numerous replicated SEC devices that originated from Dr Stiffler, Here are some more devices that Patrick J. Kelly has documented on the subject. I'm not saying they all work, but you need to look deeper. Its been a while since I last looked at the subject, but heres something I've just found that seems to defy physics, youtube, why dont you replicate it and try to explain it, the plans are available. Seb-Gibbs (talk) 20:39, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

First of all, thanks for that 2287 page(!!) link, but here's a hint: If Tom Bearden is quoted as a "technical expert", any physicist will know he doesn't have to bother to read many of those 2287 pages. That said, it's the most complete documentation of free energy nuts I've ever seen. It's got the usual cast of characters: Bearden, Newman, Meyers, Bedini, Steorn, Sweet, etc, but a whole lot more I've never heard of (and I've made a hobby of this). There's nothing particularly original (the usual coils, magnets, and jars of goo), but the shear magnitude is impressive. As for the video, what exactly did you find so impressive? I saw a light bulb getting brighter and dimmer, narrated by some guy who kept mixing up his units.Prebys (talk) 21:48, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah - YouTube "science" videos are almost universally faked. This one is childishly easy. There are a bunch of wires that disappear off the edge of the white board - who knows where they go? Maybe to a wall socket? That's my guess. Failing that, it would be easy to drill a hole under the base of the lamp and thread wires up from beneath to power the circuit. Then there is a coil - well, the principle of induction is well known - there could be another coil inducing power into it just under the table - how can we possibly know? What's more likely - that the laws of physics have been overturned - or that we have yet another lying, cheating YouTube troll at work?

Certainly we can't write an authoritative encyclopedia entry based around something that's so easy to fake.

If you're convinced that it works - build one. It looks like it has maybe $10 worth of parts and doesn't require any soldering skills. So I'll do you a deal: Build it and send me one. If I find that it does indeed generate "free energy" (ie it doesn't run on some internal power source like a battery that can run down - and it's not getting power from outside the apparatus)- I'll buy it from you for $1,000...a hundred times what it cost you to build it...and I'll promise to work tirelessly to make a Wikipedia article about it. If it doesn't, you pay me $100 for my time and you make a YouTube video where you publicly admit that you knowingly tried to cheat me out of $1,000. How's that for a deal? Put your money where your mouth is - or shut the heck up! SteveBaker (talk) 22:41, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

That PDF is hilarious! (The stoopid thing is protected against copy/paste so it's painful to quote) But I just love the bit where it says that if you can't replicate one of these machines, it doesn't mean that it doesn't work...yeah...great...that's just the way science proceeds! "Hey - I couldn't make it work - but that's OK, I'm convinced anyway". Urgh! It's just full of careful weasel-words and stuffed to the brim with pseudo-science...actually "cargo cult science" is a better term. It's like someone has seen a scientist from a distance and thinks that he can produce scientific results by surrounding himself with scientific-sounding words. If this is your idea of a "reliable source" - you have a LOT to learn about writing an encyclopedia! 23:24, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm obviously not going to spend a lot of time reading it, but the parts I've skimmed through are priceless. In 5 minutes, I found volts used as a unit of power, a unit of energy, and a unit of "electromagnetic flux".Prebys (talk) 04:05, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

It's certainly a waste of time to read the entire thing - but it exhibits all of the classic "physics-101" misunderstandings. Confusing "force" and "energy" is perhaps the most egregious. It exhibits the classic free-energy-nut "gut feel" that because permanent magnets exert a force that never "runs down", it must be possible to extract energy perpetually...if only you could figure out the right way to do it! He gushes at length about the variations on the old (and very busted!) idea of using a magnet to pull a steel ball up a ramp - which then falls off the end of the ramp, rolls down to the bottom - only to be pulled back up by the magnet! Classic free-energy bullshit - simultaneously hilarious and kinda sad. Anyway - this document might be of interest at the Perpetual motion article - but it is living proof of how "free energy" ideas aren't being suppressed. I've had the document on my PC for over 12 hours now - and no sign of black helicopters or "big oil" hitmen yet. SteveBaker (talk) 12:06, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, for all the whining about "suppression", this document is choc-a-bloc full of complete mechanical drawings and circuit diagrams - everything you need to put these things together. Most are quite old, some over 100 years, so there's been plenty of time to make them work. With all that time and information, if you can't get them to work, you really can't blame Big Brother, or Big Oil, or even Mr. Big from "Sex in the City". It is kind of sad. Mr. Kelly is probably not a stupid guy. It looks like he spent years putting this stuff together. No telling what he might have accomplished if he'd done something useful. That said, I'm debating whether this might be a reasonable "further reading" for the article, strictly as a "one stop shopping" example of claims.Prebys (talk) 15:07, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Well - I don't know. In as much as it's clearly a labor of love - and obviously represents a lot of diligent effort - it's a nice document - and linking to it in some way seems useful. The fact that it also has near fatal 'bullshit-density' simply goes with the subject matter it's trying to cover. But as far as I can tell, it doesn't actually say anything on the topic of free energy suppression - and that's a problem. Reading it wouldn't give our readership any additional insight into the topic of our article...except that, as an artifact that's freely available on the Internet, it represents some kind of concrete proof that free energy ideas are not being suppressed. So it doesn't really work as "Further Reading" because reading it doesn't help you to understand our topic.

It would make more sense to attach it as further reading to the perpetual motion article - although it might then be construed as violating WP:ELPOV.

What might be neat would be to add a section to the main body of this article that talks about evidence that free energy schemes are not being suppressed - and use this super-comprehensive/freely-available document as a reference for that statement. Since it would only have to stand as proof of it's own existence, it is a reliable source, regardless of the validity or credibility of the content. SteveBaker (talk) 16:58, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

It could even simply support a sentence like "There have been numerous claims of free energy devices over the last century, none of which is currently in use". It doesn't cite most claims within the paper, but there's a long list of citations at the end. Again, since we're merely citing claims, I believe (as bad as it is) it qualifies as a WP:RS. Hopefully, most people will reach the obviously conclusion that these devices simply don't work. Those that conclude "Wow, the suppression is even bigger than I thought" were probably beyond hope from the beginning.Prebys (talk) 18:38, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

the point of the pdf was to point out the subject is vast, when the wiki hardly recognises that the subject exists. Seb-Gibbs (talk) 19:15, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, except that it doesnt in any way point out the subject is vast. It shows that one guy can write a long PDF. I could do that. If it wanted to. I just don't. Guyonthesubway (talk) 20:01, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Its obviously not the knowledge of one man. Seb-Gibbs (talk) 20:20, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Dude, check yourself. A crappy youtube video and 2300 pages of some obsessed dude's cut and paste is widely ignored by folks far smarter than me. There's a reason. Its hokum. I'd LOVE to have free energy. Dammit, I want a flying car too!! But if I believe that crappy video then I have to believe in UFOs, Werewolves, and light sabers. They're all there, in far more convincing videos. Lots of pages in a PDF don't make anything but crying trees if you print it. I reiterate the 'build the damn thing' challenge. If you can build the thing in the video, I'll give you 5 grand for it. I'll make millions. I suspect you could even enter that thing in the Randi million dollar challenge. Win the million, and then sell it to me and make a $1,005,500! oh, and to the 'no nothings'[sic] here DON'T FEED THE TROLL Guyonthesubway (talk) 00:10, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Let me get this straight...you're outbidding me for this non-existant, non-functioning device? Darn! SteveBaker (talk) 13:26, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

The 'free energy' subject exists, whether nonsense, fact or fiction, it is a big thing, talked about by crowds of people. For some reason the wiki can only list a page on a 'free energy suppression' which IS heavily suppressed right here by folk like you. Even if it is 'troll', Why is so many people here on this page who are interested at keeping the information on the wiki about this to the minimum. Why is this? UFOs is a good subject to compare this with, as its not proven, doesnt make sense, yet there is documentation of events and I'm sure there is page on about UFOs here on the wiki. (ps. to the previous comments made, I do not believe in scientology. scientology has many sides to it, but largely its a complete scam) Seb-Gibbs (talk) 10:35, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

If you feel strongly about a Free Energy page, you are perfectly capable of creating one. I don't personally have a strong opinion one way or the other about the existence of such a page per se, but it has to be more than a clearing house for random crazy claims or it will get deleted. Your own source shows that there have been hundreds of claims, dating back to at least the 19th century. The fact that none of them are on the store shelves means either none of them work (the view of myself and the vast majority of scientists) or there is a massive conspiracy to cover them up. The arguments why they don't work are covered in the perpetual motion page, and this page addresses the other argument.Prebys (talk) 12:44, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

The problem with an article on free energy is that there aren't any reliable sources that talk about actual, for real free energy machines. So if you're expecting there to be a page that would carefully (gorgeously, lavishly, lovingly) describe each one of these crazy contraptions then you're very much mistaken. The page would be required (by Wikipedia editing guidelines) to discuss scientific matters (which is all of this stuff) using only information from reliable sources...meaning peer-reviewed papers in respected scientific journals...and not to give undue weight to fringe theories. So it'll be exceedingly difficult to find very much that you can say on the subject. Worse still - what could you call that page? You can't call it Free energy - because that's already a disambiguation page. Free energy (pseudoscience) would work for me...but I imagine that if you believe in this crap, you're going to want something less descriptive. Honestly, the "Perpetual motion" page is already the very most you could hope for.

Is this "free energy suppression"? Maybe - but it's the rules by which this website is constructed - and we're not about to change that for the free energy community any more than we are for the Ufology/homeopathy/astrology/time cube/holocaust denial/creation science/Flat Earth theory/Dowsing/Indigo children crazies. We construct our editing guidelines to avoid the encyclopedia becoming infested with junk science - and free energy falls right into that category. SteveBaker (talk) 13:26, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Wow, never heard of Indigo children before. Amazing what you pick up on Wikipedia.Prebys (talk) 15:24, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah - it's an especially annoying pseudo-sciencey thing. People (typically aging hippies) believe their kids are "special" - nothing new about that - but then they claim that they have this invisible purple "aura" and then start to pile on increasingly crazy claims about these (kinda-ordinary) children. When you meet someone who claims that - it's very hard to deal with. Truly, you can hurt your head with some of the Category:Pseudoscience stuff that's out there. SteveBaker (talk) 18:53, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

There is a page on perpetual motion machines. The two are functionally equivalent. Someone toss a link to it with an explanatory sentence onto the Free energy disambiguation page, and call it a day. TallNapoleon (talk) 12:15, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree. SteveBaker (talk) 13:26, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I have added Seb-Gibbs' link as an example of the many claims of free energy. Although the document definitely NOT a WP:RS for the factuality of any of the claims, I think it's reasonable evidence for the existence of the claims. This seemed like an acceptable alternative to a zillion individual links.Prebys (talk) 14:36, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Suggest: Change title to Cheap energy theories

I think the distinction between free energy and cheap energy is dubious when we are dealing with pseudoscience. For example the Japanese water-powered car [[1]] allegedly runs on water and hence would be classified as cheap energy. However, anybody who knows chemistry will see that it generates as much water as it consumes and thus would classify it as a perpetual motion machine. But the hoax only works for people who don't understand chemistry. So this is cheap energy for those who believe the hoax, and free energy for those who don't. The distinction makes no sense.

I came to this page hoping to find a discussion and possible debunking of the many conspiracy theories and hoaxes that circulate on social media about suppressed energy sources, including Teslas machine and the water-powered car, but found an unconstructive distinction between free energy and cheap energy and whether something is a conspiracy theory or not. Whatever the title, we need a page that discusses the many conspiracy theories and pseudoscientific theories about cheap energy sources. 90.184.27.253 (talk) 09:10, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Thomas Henry Moray

That stuff about Thomas Henry Moray doesn't really make sense. It has a line claiming he was shot at, with no citation, which is followed by a completely non-sequitur line and citation about "The Sun Betrayed". These two sentences were taken verbatim from his WP article, which appears to be trying to build a "Free Energy Suppression" section of its own. If I don't hear any objection, I'm going to remove this section until someone finds some proper documentation.Prebys (talk) 11:54, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

If the ref is good in his article, I'd suggest leaving it. The solar stuff can certainly go. Guyonthesubway (talk) 14:59, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

That's the point, the ref about the shooting points to "The Sun Betrayed". If you take that away, there's nothing supporting the shooting claim, unless it's in the book. I don't have the book and don't really have any interest in getting it. For now, I'll cut the solar stuff and leave a "citation needed" on the other, but in the end this guy seems below our admittedly very low bar.Prebys (talk) 19:12, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

The book was written by "Moray B. King"; that is, an author whose first name is the same as the subject's last name. That seems a bit much to be a coincidence. "King" has no credentials I can find, and has written two other books on "Zero point energy", all published by "Adventures Unlimited Press", which appears to be a self-publishing site for fringe topics. My opinion is that this does not rise to the level of WP:RS and this entry (as well as the article on Moray himself) should be deleted.Prebys (talk) 19:32, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

[[2]] google books search reveals quite a few references to him. Several mention the shooting incident. I'm going to assume the book cited has the same, unless you feel like seraching it out. Perhaps we shoudl resource to a better book? Got a favorite? Guyonthesubway (talk) 20:09, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Perusing the list, there is no "better" book; these are a bunch of kook books that simply crib from each other. Nevertheless, it's not worth the fight. If we delete the entry, we'll be accused of being "part of the conspiracy".Prebys (talk) 14:30, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I objected to deletion, these events have been documented quite well, just not very well on the wiki. Seb-Gibbs (talk) 20:52, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I disagree that repeating the same hearsay multiple times constitutes "documentation"; nevertheless, I accept that deleting this content is probably more trouble than it's worth.Prebys (talk) 21:17, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

If there is no source to back these claims why have it? IRWolfie- (talk) 18:24, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm tempted to side with IRWolfie - if we can't source it properly, why's it in an encyclopædia aricle? - but perhaps a rephrase could be a compromise; rephrase it along the lines of "According to..." bobrayner (talk) 19:48, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

We don't seem to have reliable sources to say if he claims it! IRWolfie- (talk) 20:01, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I shortened the section and took out the completely non-sequitur reference to "The Sun Betrayed". The general feeling is that the story about the shooting is "probably" in the Moray King book which is mentioned in the Thomas Moray article, but since I haven't read the book and have no intention of ever reading it, I left it as "citation needed" until someone else can confirm it. Since I originally moved to delete the whole entry, I won't cry if that's your decision.Prebys (talk) 20:22, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I've let a link to it in the see also section since it's related, although you can delete that if you think it makes sense to do so. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:00, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Examples section

I changed the name from "Historic cases" to "Examples" because the former implied the list was somehow complete. Certainly, more "inventors" have claimed suppression than those listed, but I don't personally have any interest in cataloging them all, so I thought this was a reasonable compromise.Prebys (talk) 20:28, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I added Bearden to the examples section, because it was getting a little thin. Plus, talking about free energy conspiracy theories without mentioning Bearden is like talking about classical music without mentioning Beethoven.Prebys (talk) 15:08, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

actually, someone already started to list these inventors and other claims of free eneregy devices, and he got his article supressed....twice deleted it was--84.228.115.5 (talk) 15:37, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

False. A spinoff article which was a copy of the examples section was deleted, on the grounds that it should have been left here, and the name was misleading, implying both that they had discovered/invented something, and that it was suppressed. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:05, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Potentially Valuable References

A lot has been written about this "free energy" subject and there are dozens, if not hundreds, of people involved with it. Yet, this WP article on "free energy suppression" is a bit limited in coverage. Surely, this is due the fact that so much of the publications about this subject don't comply to WP:RS, but probably also because over-enthusiast pseudo-scientists keep everybody busy by inserting all kinds of unfit content. This list of potentially valuable references on this talk page might help editors to improve the quality of the article.

Questionable relevance; about free energy technology (or ZPE extraction, energy from the quantum vacuum), not specifically about suppression, but possible valuable for related commentary.

Media FOLLOW-UP: What is the 'zero-point energy' (or 'vacuum energy') in quantum physics? Is it really possible that we could harness this energy (Comments on the controversy: "There is, however, a considerable fringe element (similar to those attracted to UFOs, astrology, numerology and so on) of people who speculate and fantasize about the possibility of exploiting the zero-point energy to achieve various technical marvels and the long-sought 'perpetual motion.' Consider yourself warned.") Will Someone Build A Perpetual Motion Machine? (Comments on the controversy: "Still others claim they're tapping the "zero-point energy" that fills all space. The first two are considered nonsensical, and while zero-point energy has a basis in science, using it to run a machine does not.") Reliable ? Zero Point Energy Gets a Patent (Comments on the controversy: "The whole thing reads like pseudoscience, and the idea of harnessing zero point energy has a history of attracting crackpots. But personally, I don’t know enough about the physics to point to a particular invalid claim in the patent. To my knowledge, such a device would constitute a perpetual motion machine, and would violate the laws of thermodynamics.") Looking For The Energy Holy Grail: Zero Point Energy And Quantum Vacuum Engineering: An Interview With Fabrizio Pinto(Comments on the problem with funding & support: "I continue to be amazed at the freezing cold reception Casimir force applications to technology receive at the highest levels of the US government, considering their promise. The government would be the natural choice to explore the entire range of activities that might be enabled by ZPE (and perhaps the more controversial ZPE extraction) experimentation, considering also that defense applications in this field in the near term are obvious to us. With the exception of a few heroic, enthusiastic, and competent technology experts in a few agencies, there exists a deafening silence regarding the Casimir effect as the key to the future of nanotechnology within the US government. ")

Media

There are mainstream media articles that wrote about "free energy", Zero-point energy, the Casimir effect, etc, which probably haven't been considered as a reference for this WP article. It's probably best to stay well within the bounds of WP:RS and WP:N when it comes to news articles, which practically means only mainstream news sources should be acceptable.

Books

For books things should be a bit different. The WP:RS should be applied, but not to the extend that whole books should be excluded out of principle. When a certain claim or the basic/summarized content of a book is notable, limited attention should be allowed, provided that it's within context and clearly labeled as coming from that primary source.

WP:RS specifically recommends the use of independent secondary sources. WP:FRINGE specifically says that non-independent fringe material can not be given weight. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:38, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Don't panic. This article is about a conspiracy theory, not about the fundaments of physics. I was merely suggesting that the article could mention the fact that there exist some books on this free energy stuff and maybe minimally give an neutral account of what is generally being postulated in the original texts.FrankRadioSpecial (talk) 22:39, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Patents

Patents can be assumed to have been carefully analysed/assessed by a patent office, so most claims inside a patent could be reported on, provided that the claims are properly labeled in the WP article as coming from that patent source.FrankRadioSpecial (talk) 23:34, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

This article explicitly concerns the conspiracy theory that free energy is being suppressed, and a conscientious effort has been made to prevent it from becoming a clearing house for random free energy claims (which it once was). Since most of your references claim to essentially be how-to manuals, and are readily available, they are by definition not being suppressed, and are therefore not really relevant here. Most of them would better fit in some of the topical articles, such as zero point energy or perpetual motion.Prebys (talk) 18:59, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

"Patents can be assumed to have been carefully analysed/assessed by a patent office", Haha, pull the other, it's got bells on. You should read up more about the patent system. IRWolfie- (talk)

I agree with Prebys on some things; Looked at the history of the article, it indeed appeared to be a clearing house for random free energy claims at one point, which shouldn't be in Wikipedia. I also noticed there were a lot of attempts to fit unsourced claims and biased language into the article, from pro-conspiracy folks as well as anti-conspiracy/skeptics. The article still needs work to reach a neutral point of view. It would be nice if Prebys is a little bit more specific which references s/he sees as "how-to manuals" and which would fit in other articles. The news articles aren't "how-to manuals" and some do refer to elements of suppression. I made an effort here, which I think shouldn't be set aside with a quick unspecific dismissal. IRWolfie- should read the rest of the sentence: "so most claims inside a patent could be reported on, provided that the claims are properly labeled in the WP article as coming from that patent source". I'm not saying anything inside a patent should be regarded as valid, nor that patent offices are in anyway near flawless. What are you saying? That patent aren't carefully analysed/assessed by a patent office? That they just give it a stamp? Seriously, why such a tone against me (a person you don't know)? I'm just trying to improve this article (which was in a sloppy condition, despite numerous edits by so many).FrankRadioSpecial (talk) 23:46, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Certainly "Practical conversion of zero point energy" and "The free energy device handbook" can be considered how-to manuals, but if you feel that some of these can be used to support conspiracy theories or the existence of conspiracy theories, then it's your job to point out which they are.Prebys (talk) 15:15, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Patents are good for nothing more than "the filer claims that...". Not "true that..." or that anyone (either peer or otherwise) confirms it. DMacks (talk) 02:31, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

In your opinion throughout Wikipedia? Or just in case of a controversial subject?FrankRadioSpecial (talk) 11:26, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Patents establish a proprietary claim, nothing else. They certainly can't be used as evidence for anything that's even mildly controversial scientifically. And once more, this article is about suppression. It's difficult to see how you could establish suppression by referencing a patent. Relevant patents belong in the appropriate related articles (and indeed many are already there).Prebys (talk) 15:15, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I didn't suggest to use the patents as evidence for anything controversial. You made a baseless assumption. Reset the filters.FrankRadioSpecial (talk) 17:17, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

If you're not presenting them as evidence, why are you listing them?Prebys (talk) 19:23, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

In Wikipedia references aren't considered as evidence in every case for one position or another, but in some cases they can be. See WP:CITE and WP:VNT.FrankRadioSpecial (talk) 20:38, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Let's reset this discussion. We all seem to agree that patents are not valid refs for anything controversial--nothing more than "the claimant claims..." And we also seem to agree that this article must not become a dumping ground of such claims, especially given the scope of "free energy suppression". So...what actually is the intent here with respect to improving this article? DMacks (talk) 06:56, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. The intent is to provide potentially valuable references on this talk page that might help editors to improve the quality of the article. But I think that was already clear. This discussion is getting a bit ridiculous. I hoped the other editors would join me in making suggestions for improvement of the article, instead of spending all their attention to demolishing the idea of using a patent as a ref (based on the false assumption that this can only result in the ref being using as evidence for a controversial statement, something which I never suggested or hinted at). I must remind people that Wikipedia is not a forum WP:FORUM. It's perfectly within Wikipedia policy to use a patent as a ref, given the statements made are within context, backed by other refs and properly labeled in the article as coming from that patent source. In the mean time I made 59 edits to the article, with minimal to none response from the all-to-familiar over-concerned editors.FrankRadioSpecial (talk) 12:59, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

When you have less than 200 edits, it's generally bad form to try and berate an admin with 70000 more edits than you have about WP:FORUM as if he doesn't know what it is. And you are using it incorrectly, we are talking about the article and what relevance your dump had. That patents which are intrinsically primary sources, are irrelevant to this article and can not be relied on solely without secondary sources due to reasons given in WP:FRINGE. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:21, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Definitely true that patents never prove that some invention actually works. The only solid, hard fact they convey is that the author claims the things that are in the patent to be true. Not even that actually...people quite often patent things that they don't believe will work - just in case someone manages to get it to work.

The USPTO has 7,600 examiners and they have to read over 500,000 patents a year and a backlog of 700,000 patents (that backlog has grown from 200,000 in the year 2000). So in theory they have about 24 working hours - three days - to process each patent. But that's an average. Some patents are gigantic, vitally important new drug claims that take them months to understand - others are idiots who think you can get perpetual motion by connecting a motor to a generator and starting it spinning that can be rejected in under a minute. The vast majority of patents get about 25 minutes of examiner time each and are typically around 30 pages long - take out the time it takes to fill out the paperwork to accept or reject the patent and they wind up with about 30 seconds to skim each page. Truly...not good. So Wikipedia's policy is that patents are essentially only proofs of their own existence - they don't show that some gizmo actually works and they only kinda generally attest to what the author actually believed at the time it was written. I've been pressurized by my bosses in the past to file patents that I didn't think were worthwhile - so the fact that I said something in a patent most certainly doesn't mean that I believe in it. Wikipedia's policy is spot on here: A patent is only a reliable source for it's own existence. That's how it has to be. SteveBaker (talk) 20:04, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Again you guys assume I wanted to use the patent to proof something. I never suggested that. "Wikipedia's policy is spot on here: A patent is only a reliable source for it's own existence."... indeed, so they can be used to illustrate the frame of mind of certain people that believe in this free energy stuff. To IRWolfie, maybe you're right. Then again, I'm being accused of something which I never suggested, nor planned on. The WP:FORUM comment wasn't directed at DMacks, but was in general about this discussion; "I must remind people(!) that Wikipedia is not a forum WP:FORUM". If I hurt anyone's feeling, I regret that, so my apologies. Now, can we move on? I made more edits to the article. You revert a whole bunch of them earlier, with only citing reasons for a few. I then undid, and made the adjustments I figured you would like. Wouldn't it be good to have a discussion about that, the other edits, and the potentially valuable sources I suggested?FrankRadioSpecial (talk) 00:52, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Pseudoscience

Because all the best lies have a grain of truth I inserted sections rapidly reversed because citations needed. There is an article about water powered cars, and I have referenced it. the other section is more complicated:

Pseudoscience behind the Moray Valve"

From the description given by supporters of the "Moray Valve" it appears to be a simple induction coil. If placed within an alternating magnetic field a current would be induced. However there is no such 'natural' field known unless induced incidentally, for example holding one end a tubular Fluorescent lamp and placing the far end near an AC power line will cause the gas within to glow. A pair of toroidal cores placed near each other (but not physically connected) are routinely used to transfer electrical energy in explosive atmospheres and to detonate explosive devices where the ordnance is intended to depart from the power source such as in High-power rocketry

In my view, this is hardly original research, simple electrical technology - the refs are probably in other wiki articles, but there it is, for now Timpo (talk) 15:37, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

New Sources

• Obama Administration Gives Pass To Wind Energy Companies On Eagle Deaths
• Wind farms get pass on eagle deaths
• Wormholes, Void Bubbles and Vacuum Energy Suppression - Enrico Rodrigo
• CA rooftop solar success comes with warning - Barbara Vergetis Lundin
• Big reliance on renewable energy is far off - DEBRA HAIGHT - FrankRadioSpecial (talk) 11:41, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Deleted

It is upsetting to see alot of information deleted. Previously they had specific examples on T. Henry Moray, Tom Bearden, Eugene Mallove, and others. Now it's just a short article, barely more than a stub. Is this because reliable sources couldn't be found? I looked at Identifying reliable sources and it says that self-published sources are generally not considered credible. However, in the case of free energy, i think most material is self-published because the field is suppressed, so peer-reviewed articles cannot be easily found.

I also read Neutral point of view. Under #“Achieving neutrality” #“Due and undue weight”, it says, “If you can prove a theory that few or none currently believe, Wikipedia is not the place to present such a proof. Once it has been presented and discussed in reliable sources, it may be appropriately included. See "No original research" and "Verifiability".” This creates a problem. If i perform an experiment to prove that free energy is possible, how do i get the truth out to Wikipedia? Everyone else who proved free energy has apparently been suppressed, with free energy being prevented from becoming accepted fact. The same article, under #“Controversial subjects” #“Fringe theories and pseudoscience”, writes, “The pseudoscientific view should be clearly described as such.” This means that ideas like free energy or homeopathy get unfairly downgraded, when, in fact, they may be quite plausible, if you consider the magnitude of the interests that would suppress them. (The biopharmaceutical industry in the case of homeopathy. My mother, a homeopath, just this year, in July and August, gave me a homeopathic remedy, apparently with great success, so i am beginning to beleive that homeopathy does work, at least sometimes.)

I am beginning to believe that Wikipedia is too unfriendy to alternative points of view.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 00:20, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a platform for advocates of fringe or pseudoscientific theories to present their views (neither in articles nor on talk pages); doing so would not be in line with the goal of a general purpose encyclopedia. Wikipedia is also not a platform for WP:TRUTH or to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. The absolute majority of the educated world rejects concepts like homeopathy and free energy. You are of course welcome to disagree and to believe that your ideas are being unfairly suppressed but until you've achieved a PhD in medicine, biochemistry, physics, etc, and published articles in reputable journals your personal opinion is completely irrelevant to building this encyclopedia and would be better suited for a blog. N^oformation ^Talk 01:25, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Released Article "Multiple Scientists Confirm The Reality of Free Energy – Here’s The Proof"

FYI. I recently saw a link posted to this bunk article. http://www.collective-evolution.com/2013/10/11/multiple-scientists-confirm-the-reality-of-free-energy-heres-the-proof/ • Sbmeirow • Talk • 03:30, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

The site itself is not a reliable source. Just a clearing house of old stuff that's been covered before.KaturianKKaturian 19:56, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Merge

Per discussion, No Merge. Renamed "Free energy suppression conspiracy theory"
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Oppose: List class articles should contain only very superficial and short descriptions. If List of conspiracy theories contains too much info now, then that article is flawed, and most of its material should be spawned into separate articles like this one. List of conspiracy theories should also be more clear on its theory subgroups. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 16:48, 11 August 2013 (UTC) Definitely not merge. First of all, it's a notable conspiracy theory, perhaps as much or more so than the Apollo hoax; the conspiracy theory of free energy suppression, would, if true, have massive implications. Second, it is very plausible if you consider how Big Oil (not to mention Big Coal and other energy cartels) is a multi-trillion dollar industry, fully capable of ruthlessly suppressing free energy and falsely convincing the public and the science community that free energy isn't possible. In other words, if people around you tell you free energy is impossible, question it; there is a conflict of interest. Third, there are numerous sources saying free energy is possible, so many that i believe them. Websites such as [3] “Pure Energy Systems News -- Team Reporting of Alternative Energy Developments”. Peswiki, [4]. [5] by Tom Bearden whom you may well have heard of. [6] “Panacea-Bocaf: Building Our Children A Future”. There are also books such as William Lyne's Occult Ether Physics and Pentagon Aliens; Tom Bearden's Energy from the Vacuum: Concepts & Principles; David Hatcher Childress' The Free Energy Device Handbook: A Compilation of Patents & Reports (Lost Science Series) and The Fantastic Inventions of Nikola Tesla. Fourth, there are scientific mysteries that have gone unexplained for decades and, so far as I, cannot be explained without free-energists' theories. (1) UFOs. People have been seeing these mysterious aircraft/spacecraft for over 60 years, and no-one has explained them. William Lyne's books say that UFOs, aka flying saucers, were invented by Nikola Tesla, suppressed because they amounted to free energy - reaching very high speeds and altitudes on very little energy; and are secretly flown by the U.S. government, which falsely claims they are by aliens, hence the book title Pentagon Aliens. The very existence of UFO sightings proves that something is going on; since the sightings appear to be too vivid to be illusions, and the UFOs apparently fly without wings, the UFOs must be using antigravity. If antigravity is possible, then free energy must be, for, with antigravity, one can lift an object to high altitude on much less energy than the classical gravitational potential energy. (2) Also, there was the Tunguska event in 1908. You would think it was a meteor/asteroid, but no evidence of the remains of such an object has been found. In Occult Ether Physics, Lyne proposes that this event was due to a mishap with Tesla's Wardenclyffe tower. (3) Then there's Brooke Greenberg, a girl in Maryland, born January 8, 1993, who is trapped in the body of a baby; documented in Child Frozen in Time - My Shocking Story on Youtube. Doctors are still totally puzzled about the cause. Tom Bearden says it's due to what he calls “precursor engineering”, which he also ascribes as the reason Jesus and others in the Bible were able to perform so many “miracles”, and how Stanley Meyer was able to break up water into oxygen and hydrogen using much less energy that is released by burning them back into water. ([7] “The Tom Bearden Website: Precursor Engineering: The Direct Engineering of Physical Reality Via Tickling of the Dirac Sea Vacuum”; [8] “Precursor Engineering”). (4) The fact that Tesla was, for many years, and to a lesser extent otday, relatively obscure, even though he invented so many great things. Do you think this is because he was deliberately obscured by the powers that be so that people wouldn't learn about him and free energy?--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 22:46, 4 September 2013 (UTC) William Lyne's books say that UFOs, aka flying saucers, were invented by Nikola Tesla, suppressed because they amounted to free energy - reaching very high speeds and altitudes on very little energy; and are secretly flown by the U.S. government . Yeah, sorry, but no one is going to take this seriously here as WP is not a conspiracy theory wiki. You may want to read up on WP:FRINGE, WP:NOTFORUM, and WP:OR. Noformation Talk 01:00, 10 September 2013 (UTC) Nonetheless, i suppose you agree that this page should not be deleted or merged. At least i provided some food for thought. I hope someone will look at the sources i cited.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 01:52, 10 September 2013 (UTC) Based on what you've written in the section below it appears you have a decent grasp of WP policy so you must know that it's very unlikely these sources will be considered, much less integrated. Noformation Talk 02:01, 10 September 2013 (UTC) Oppose I don't agree with the merge proposal because I believe there is potential for a good article here. With that said, the page could definitely use a rewrite and the topic further clarity. A move to Free energy suppression conspiracy theory would help narrow down the focus and also allow us to frame the topic in a mainstream context. It would also be in line with our naming conventions, e.g. Chemtrail conspiracy theory, Global warming conspiracy theory, etc. Noformation Talk 01:00, 10 September 2013 (UTC) Noformation Talk 01:00, 10 September 2013 (UTC) Good idea, changing the title to “Free energy suppression conspiracy theory”. Clearer. Also, i suggest a better definition of “free energy”. Perhaps i can provide one.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 01:52, 10 September 2013 (UTC) Agreed, just make sure it's reliably cited if you give it a go. In fact much of this article needs cleanup and more sourcing to reliable journals and such. I'm sure there's no shortage of commentary on the subject. Noformation Talk 02:00, 10 September 2013 (UTC) There is clearly consensus against the merge. There is also clearly agreement that “Free energy suppression conspiracy theory” would be a more approriate title (no objection has been raised to the move). That being the case, I will make the bold move of renaming the page to said title.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 18:09, 12 June 2014 (UTC) Done. Given that the discussion died out about a year ago, it dosen't seem likely there will much objection to this. Of course, it can always be changed again if there is. But there appears to be a clear consensus here.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 18:14, 12 June 2014 (UTC)