Ein~+ein

An $11.7 million investment to save $100,000 /yr. I'm sure taxpayers would love to see whoever approved that doing time in the Santa Rita Jail.

BTW, Smart grids already exist. Regulatory standards were drawn up in 2007.

But many fall for their nonsense, more here than on YouTube ironically!!! Just read the 'Free Energy Already Exist' thread, for example. The ones Kytsun apologizes for who* take this personally are the ones who don't question the glaringly obvious BS from that thread's OP. You can start to see how the belief in FE and suppression reinforce one another -- like Jesus and Satan, and like Christianity, FE has its list of patron saints that heretics like me fail to recognize as such--show me water into wine miracle!

While there may be a kernel of truth to the suppression theory, to ascribe to them Orwellian powers that no totalitarian regime has ever been able to achieve, stretches the imagination. It's not surprising that this is particularly a western phenomenon--one in which culture has been reduced to a consumer product. My argument is that this belief in suppression and conspiracy theories is so so strong that it clouds people's better judgement. What other scam rakes in the millions that FE does?

I'm almost tempted to start my own crowdfunding FE scam to see how much money I can make raise using excuses for my lack of progress similar to what the FE Already Exist OP does. I'm sure even he could raise $1,000.

* Does it not strike you as odd that Kytsun would apologize for their posts, as if Kytsun is personally responsible for what they post? I detect a conspiracy here among certain members. Like I say, trust no one, not even me.

If you've read my posts, you'll know I'm a skeptic, often dismissed for my apparent ignorance or inexperience. While I think we all agree that at least some of the unsubstantiated claims are just that, judging from others' comments, there's no unanimous agreement on which are which, even after seemingly incontrovertible evidence is provided as in the case of Andrea Rossi's LENR E-cat.

But what's even harder for me to accept than Rossi's E-cat or cars that run efficiently on just water fuel is the suppression theory. Let's face it, if the Pentagon in cahoots with Big Oil is actively suppressing free energy globally and in so doing, preventing all but a handful of FE advocates from knowing about it, they're doing a damn fine job, much better than any totalitarian state ever did at suppressing its citizenry. One would therefore have to accept that any and all patents, schematics, detailed instructions etc, accessible online would be forgeries designed to discourage would be replication attempts. Many among us would be working for the enemy, spreading lies or misinformation as Aaron accuses me and Jon Abel of. But arguably, the freedom to post anything on any site about free energy devices would be just an illusion--we'd be zombies controlled by Verichips in an Orwellian nightmare--I mean who's seen posts edited or removed? Even Patrick Kelly's site is back online.

Belief is a choice that starts when thinking stops. I estimate FE scams around the world net in the 10s, if not in the 100s of millions annually. Even Sterling Allan reports on them but then the powers that be obviously force him to--thought I saw what looked like a gun pointed at his head once.

Nice work, inventormaster! Seems you've taken my advice (photos and all.)

Yes, but it seems at least the mainstream media's wisened up. It's individuals, investors, venture capital fund managers, and even govt's who've been falling victim to such scams. On E-day, HuffPost (Canada) did a feature on 9 Canadian Companies Working to Save the World. Given the Canadian gov'ts particular arrogance (towards enviro concerns), one can't help but wonder how prudently the $325 million earmarked for Sustainable Development Technology Canada is being spent.

I have to agree with you about Sterling Allan, as Gary Hendershot describes him, he's the cheerleader for exotic energy as long as one considers 'exotic' a euphemism for 'amateur'.

------
But back to mainstream media, remember when Ballard Power, Canada's fuel cell developer 'gave up' on hydrogen fuel cells for cars in 2007? Well, that was only because of a 5-yr 'non-compete' agreement they'd signed with Daimler-Benz who'd bought their stake. Now that its expired, they've just teamed up with VW to compete on hydrogen fuel cells (...for the 99% of us. As you're no doubt aware, Tesla and now Liberty are promoting BEVs for the 1% at $200,000+).

There's a thread on the SmartScarecrow forum: Sterling: Free Energy Optimist or Scammer?

While on the one hand, he openly admits to having supported those who later turn out to be scammers, he doesn't seem interested in posting breakthroughs with actual published academic results behind them such as some of the stories I've linked to here.

Public resistance to free energy is understandable, whether in the form of opposition to nuclear power, mega-dams or in response to the tiny fraction of free energy scams mainstream media covers. But don't underestimate demand: who wouldn't cut their energy costs to save the planet?

Currently, it doesn't seem there's going to be one 'ulitmate solution' to our energy needs. It may depend on regional factors. While the earth or a crystal battery might light an African village, how favorably would it compare with the cost/benefit ratio of conventional renewables when you scale it up? As for Silver-to-Gold's Atomic Hydrogen, you may want to read this and this?

Here are breakthroughs I've reported on that do offer possible solutions and have all been published in respected journals:
@chainmailleman I attack what I consider the promotion or acceptance of unsubstantiated claims as evidence. Some might view my skepticism as troll behavior and if so, you're obligated to report me. But can you not appreciate why I feel the way I do--do you simply believe everything anyone claims? The fact you take personal offence suggests you align yourself much closer to such claims than you perhaps should. Had I erred in anyone's opinion, I'd expect to see evidence to the contrary but where is it?

Sorry, to disappoint you. I know this is not what you're after but...Free Energy Devices Actually Working (besides wind and solar): Hydro, tidal and other generators; nuclear and other reactors; geothermal and other temperature differential devices; fossil (yes!) and bio-fuels, methane recapture, ... (What have I missed?)

Do you also refuse to believe the conspiracy theory that MiB are everywhere preventing and endangering anyone who attempts to patent such a device, distribute functional prototypes or share clear, unambiguous instructions for how to build one? Anyone have the link to the FE Martyrs homepage?

Beware, they're everywhere!!!

Obviously not far or there'd be an iCar.

Ever hear the name John Doerr or his company Kleiner Perkins? You would've had he not turned from backing tech startups such as Amazon and Google to Free Energy.

You didn't get my point about the Sahara--can you forget the pragmatics for just a minute and do the math? Furthermore, isn't demand greatest during daylight hours? Of course, there's need for nighttime electricity but that's why I encouraged you to look into what are called energy 'currencies'

You didn't get my point about the Sahara--can you forget the pragmatics for just a minute and do the math? Furthermore, isn't demand greatest during daylight hours? Of course, there's need for nighttime electricity but that's why I encouraged you to look into what are called energy 'currencies'

...and you're thinking gravity?!? Those places are ideal for solar!!! Spain, for example generates 250 Megawatts of power from just 2 solar stations. You can't get that from elevator efficiency increases. If the entire Sahara desert were one big solar farm, it would generate... [why not research that to get an idea?]

You've got to be realistic. While your creative brainstorming approach to our pressing energy vs environmental sustainability problem is highly commendable, it's unfortunate that there aren't others on this forum doing the same. What's needed is a public think tank to generate the wealth of ideas needed to come up with novel and practical approached from an engineering perspective. You may wish to search around for such a forum and report back if you find one.

While on the one hand, our armchair ideas appear far closer to tapping actual unused 'free energy' sources than all the Meyer, Tesla, Bedini, and Don Smith devotees' with their replication attempts ... such ideas even if successfully implemented, are not going to amount to much in the grander scheme of things, that is, if reducing carbon emissions is your prime concern. To save the planet, we need gigawatts of green power, and NOW!!!

However, for personal gain, it's worth pursuing such modest efficiency increases because:
a) long-term cost savings will motivate the switch;
b) switching stimulates modest economic growth;
c) gov'ts will support such environmental initiatives.

As an example, look at plans to once again (in my lifetime) replace N.A's streetlamps. Here's another opportunity: gym treadmills and weight machines, if re-engineered (from using to generating electricity), could turn a health club green while significantly reducing or even eliminating their energy costs.

But if you're looking for untapped sources of energy, why not look at what we OVERPRODUCE, particularly at night when demand drops? With your interest in gravity, you may want to look at ways, not of producing, but of storing off-peak electricity using. I think I saw something to this effect in National Geographic a few years back. Maybe you can find it online.

It was storage of this nighttime excess capacity that compelled me to follow the Stan Meyer (water 'fuel cell') replication thread. I was trying to get a sense of whether Jon Abel or others on that thread including this website's co-founder and moderator had increased the efficiency of electrolysis, but surprisingly, no one's making any FE claims. Currently the energy input (of electrolysis) is greater than the energy output (from the resulting hydroxy) suggesting there may be more efficient and safer methods of storing excess capacity, although Meyers claimed to run his car entirely from water. Conspiracy theorists claim he was 'killed' to cover up his secret formula, despite the fact everything he wrote is freely available online. Go figure.

You may want to watch/listen to eco-pioneer Stewart Brand (Whole Earth Catalog) discussing facts and figures on renewables. For example 10% of electrical power in the US comes from recycled soviet warheads. I didn't know that the sun provides 240 watts/sq meter.

Regarding Canal Hydro-electric potential:
At least in Ontario, Canada,the Trent-Severn system currently produces nearly 100 Mws with an added potential of 50 Mws. With hydro everywhere, there's a lot of unused potential, especially in spring.

Solar, wind and tidal are also minute but I'd love to see a cost comparison between solar and micro-hydro (in a canal, river or creek). My brother's installed solar panels on his Ottawa bungalow rooftop--I'll ask him for details.

When I get the time, I'll find out about canal (lock) water throughput.

Here's one of the 2 replies I got. It's from microhydropower.com:

By 'intermittent' is he suggesting the natural water throughput in (most?) locks is insufficient to make this worthwhile? At least we know there are locks with installed generators so the question is what throughput would make this economically viable given a jurisdiction's overall (and peak-load) electricity costs (whether from generating or from grid purchases).

I'm still looking at this from an accountant's perspective given that it's doable, but from an engineer's, I imagine it would be a single generator turbine, submerged at the base of each lock, rather than 2 separate ones for efficiency reasons but I don't know.

Thanks for listing those canal systems in Canada. I'll research water throughput when I get a chance?

I've emailed 2 Canadian micro-hydro generator distributors and also got a dozen hits on microhydropower.net for 'canal' one of which reads:

So, not only is it feasible, but more efficiency than anticipated!!! As with any other 'claim', now all we've got to do is replicate it!

So, the next step would be to promote the idea among canal operators elsewhere. There are at least 2 canal systems in Ontario, Canada with locks. Any others?

Probably? We won't know unless we fact-check that encyclopedia entry--it could be merely conjectural based on past energy projections? As for the Annapolis tidal station, that same link provides its MW capacity--a tiny fraction of the entire proposal. How about you check up on this and report back and I'll do the same for canal lock micro-hydrogeneration?

I see you're back to the idea of using decommissioned barges (or oil rigs) but if they're decommissioned due to corrosion, you're no further ahead. Did you notice corrosion as one issue with tidal generation although it can be reduced (to what extent?) through ionization and if you're generating electricity, that's not a problem.

The ideas we discussed on that previous thread may be worth looking into. You may wish to contact university or gov't departments, environmental NGOs, etc to get an idea as to how feasible these ideas are. The next step then is to initiate public discussion about going ahead with them:

(Reuters) - Are electric cars running out of juice again?

This shift toward hydrogen and away from (H/B)EVs is a clear indication that for the long term, automakers:
a) don't believe any (B)EV battery breakthrough will render hybrids and ICEs obsolete (cost reduction, energy density, recharge time);
b) don't believe the numerous Free Energy claims by those such as Thane Heins with his self-charging, self-accelerating ReGen-X;
c) consider HEVs (hybrids) as merely transitional technology;
d) expect governments (to subsidize Big Oil?) to create the infrastructure just as they did with propane in the '80s. Currently, big oil, has a stake in the heavily subsidized wind generating business as this columnist argues and it's not very enviro- nor even business-friendly.

This seems political. Since it's likely they're not looking to any hydrogen-on-demand breakthrough where you just add water, such a strategy may have come from big oil hoping to remain viable. Hydrogen is an energy 'currency'--a means of storing excess capacity and since storing and distributing hydrogen would need to be regulated, it would be the perfect way for the oil industry to remain viable and keep their filling stations.

Let me ask those following hydrogen as a fuel: Has anyone found a way to separate H20 using less energy than provided by the result? To me, it's akin to gravity-based perpetual motion machines--even theoretically it doesn't sound feasible because of the cyclical nature of the separating and recombining of elements involved---it's not nuclear fusion. Why would separating H from O involve less energy than in recombining them?