Talk:Free energy suppression conspiracy theory/Archive 3

Good intent bad sources
Perfectblues try on clarifying matters in the intro is certainly well-intended. But whether it can be saved depends on two open problems: Look at Perfectblue's suggestions: The conspiracy theory follows two tracks. 1) That the renewable energy sector (Solar, wind, and hydroelectric generation, etc) is being held back by vested interests, who are restricting expansion and suppressing the emergence more efficient technologies capable of drawing more power from natural sources that current technology,  while also acting to suppress alternatives to fossil fuels such as Bio-diesel, and devices that could reduce pollution levels, or increase energy/fuel efficiency of existing technology. 2) That devices capable of extracting significant and usable power form preexisting energy reservoirs (see Zero-point energy) for little or no cost, are possible, but are being suppressed All three references given, are primary, self-published sources. They may be usable for an article about its resepective author (which we thankfully don't have), but not for anything other.
 * Is the alleged suppression of renewable energy sources known was "Free energy suppression"? Wikipedia should doucument terminology, not introduce it.
 * Reliable, secondardy sources for the "free energy" part. I.e. is there a scholarly work or notable journalism about the topic.

Pjacobi 08:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Primary sources: "Piece of information or evidence that was created by someone who witnessed first hand or was part of the historical events that are being described". These are sources which, usually, are recorded by someone who participated in, witnessed, or lived through the event. These are also usually authoritative and fundamental documents concerning the subject under consideration. This includes published original accounts, published original works, or published original research. Physical objects can be primary sources. Wikipedia would not ordinarily be considered a primary source (see No original research).
 * Secondary sources: "Piece of writings which were not penned contemporaneously with the events in question". These are sources which, usually, are accounts, works, or research that analyze, assimilate, evaluate, interpret, and/or synthesize primary sources. These are not as authoritative and are supplemental documents concerning the subject under consideration. This includes published accounts, published works, or published research. Wikipedia would be considered a secondary source on some occasions.
 * Tertiary sources: These are sources which, on average, do not fall into the above two levels. They consist of generalized research of a specific subject under consideration. Tertiary sources are analyzed, assimilated, evaluated, interpreted, and/or synthesized from secondary sources, also. These are not authoritative and are just supplemental documents concerning the subject under consideration. Wikipedia would be considered a tertiary source on some occasions.
 * J. D. Redding 02:43, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about the bullets, but you've raised a number of issues.


 * 1) It's best to think of free energy suppression as a phenomona of belief, not terminology.
 * 2) I'd like some peer-reviewed articles about Bigfoot, for or against, believer or skeptic, either would be nice, but it's just not a subject that gets published all that often. We have to work with what we have. A self published primary source won't stand up as hard science under WP:RS, but here it's just being presented as opinion. The sources are proof of belief, not proof of science.
 * 3) I don't feel that the page should be about actual actual free energy suppression, only the belief in it. As such, primary sources are acceptable.

perfectblue 11:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Google Scholar search for "Bigfoot anthropology" gives me over 300 hits, obviously that's only a very crude estimate of the availability of literature on the topic which can fail in both direction. But you can learn about some journals which seem to be potential sources:
 * Western Folklore
 * Current Anthropology
 * Journal of Contemporary Religion
 * Ethnos
 * Pjacobi 13:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * If only it were that simple. In order to satisfy the skeptics who haunt such pages, it would have to be a peer-reviewed veterinary, anthropology or zoological journal or it could only be used to give base details. Many of the skeptics around here won't even except the JSPR for basic details. I'd like a good solid article from Nature quoting both skeptics and believers presenting the best evidence and the best rebuttals. It'd also like a dynamite body and naturally bouncy hair that looks good first thing in the morning, but I'm not likely to get that either. - perfectblue 13:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, above mentioned journals, are peer-reviewed, scientific journals. Especially scholary publication in anthropology are often completelely ignored in favor of whacky Google-jobs. --Pjacobi 13:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Added a couple of third party sources - perfectblue 12:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Funny you mention that, "in order to satisfy the skeptics". You mean satisfy the people who have suppressed the technologies?  With the help of the big news media they can easily suppress everything remotely related to free energy on wikipedia. No, not on this page I think. This page is about the suppression it self. The stalking is a perfect example of how suppression gets done.  We should write a paragraphs about that.

84.104.135.195 (talk) 04:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Steven Mark NPOV
This section is both poorly written and in violation of WP:NPOV - it reads like an advertisement for Mr. Mark's statements. His statements are quoted without question, allegations of slander are leveled at his skeptics, and the section was clearly written by a believer in free energy suppression insofar as that sources such as overunity.com are cited. This section is in serious need of revision or removal. -Interested2 03:02, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I made an edit to this section and it was reverted by an anon; I'd like to know why, and am returning it as the change is referenced. Titanium Dragon 06:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The entire section seems to be lacking reliable sources; can we get a better source than is currently there for the section? Titanium Dragon 06:50, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * There's no reference for the accusations of fraud that I can find. If accurate, please link references to the appropriate statements.  I see your version has a better tone, but I saw an unsourced change in content. &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 08:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Its the first reference in the list of references; I basically just read through them trolling for dirt.
 * The problem is it appears four of the references are from the same website and the fifth doesn't look particularly realiable either. The section is labelled "notable free energy proponents", but it seems like none of those sources establish notability (and I removed a sixth source, which was a YouTube video) and don't seem particularly reliable. Titanium Dragon 10:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I have deleted the section - it is plainly non-notable. See WP:FRINGE LeContexte (talk) 11:42, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Attempted rewriting
To try to understand the article I had to rewrite some. It was verbose and repetitive, and had imperfect sentences. I wondered if some was translated into English by a native speaker of the original who was not au fait with English. My rewrite did not get very far into the unencyclopedic muddle.--SilasW (talk) 21:21, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Extraterrestrial Technology
I noticed a sentence about extraterrestrial technology in there; is this a core component of many of these conspiracy theories, or was this random vandalism that never got caught or an isolated sentence fragment which no longer makes sense? If it needs to stay in, can someone please give it some context? Titanium Dragon (talk) 12:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't put it there, but it's definitely not vandalism, as there are a lot of people who believe this  . For example, Zero Point Energy (ZPE) is one of the more common "explanations" for UFO propulsion .  These beliefs seem to feed primarily to the huge overlap in conspiracy communities; that is, people who believe in massive free energy cover ups also tend to believe in UFO cover ups (not to mention Moon Hoax cover ups, Philadelphia experiment cover ups, 9/11 cover ups, etc, etc).  Thus, the "reality" of UFO's is used to bolster the "reality" of ZPE.  It's probably OK to leave it here.  When I get some time, I'll try to improve the wording.Prebys (talk) 17:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Alright, was just making sure. It felt very out of place there, and while I was aware of the overlap in conspiracy theory communities ("You think a massive worldwide collection of scientists is conspiring to create a mass of global warming data? That's like believing that the moon landing was shot on a soundstage in Nevada!" "You don't actually believe we went to the Moon, do you?") I wasn't aware of the specific connection. If it is relevant, though, that's fine. Titanium Dragon (talk) 20:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Zero point energy is real - it does produce a measurable force - as demonstrated in the Casimir effect. The problem is that people with just enough science education to be dangerous are seemingly incapable of distinguishing the difference between a force and energy.  I'm convinced that this is at the heart of the problem.  These people tend to imagine that net energy can be extracted from things like magnets and gyroscopes - which explains why such things figure so highly in the more bizarre free energy schemes.


 * It does seem somehow 'right' that you can do that. When you hold a refrigerator magnet close to your fridge, it wants to jump out of your hand and stick to the fridge - it seems almost 'alive' - full of energy.  No matter how many times you release it and let it jump across to the fringe, the magnet never "runs down".  This seems (to the inadequately trained) to be a source of limitless energy.


 * Just put yourself into the mindset of someone who makes the error of conflating force with energy: The force that science can actually demonstrate with the Casimir effect (technically the Casimir-Polder force) must to be a source of limitless energy.  Your frustration if you cannot make that mental leap from force to energy correctly is absolutely guaranteed!  I can imagine that it must be incredibly frustrating that scientists made this amazing discovery of quantum weirdness.  They've done experiments that 'demonstrate the existance of the Casimir-Polder force - yet they absolutely refuse to research into how to "harness" it to produce limitless guilt-free power.  Those bastards!  They must have ulterior motives.


 * Couple this difficulty with the wishful-thinking aspect of not having to screw up their lives with annoying things like energy conservation - and the 'head-in-the-sand' hope that this global warming thing will somehow just go away.


 * It is only through education that we can help these people...but their distrust of scientists is now so great that they are largely beyond help. The last free energy nut I tried to help would patiently explain that when he holds out his hand at arms length and places a heavy book upon it, he very soon becomes tired because he's expending energy to counteract the force of gravitational attraction upon the book - so (he claims) force and energy must be the same thing.  Sadly, explaining the biology of muscle contration is beyond my knowledge - and when I offer a counter-example by asking how that table can support an identical book without consuming any energy, he resorts to contorted descriptions of the rigidity of the table somehow connecting the book to the planet and thereby nullifying the force of gravity.  This is all abject nonsense - but once someone is convinced - it's REALLY tough to change their minds.


 * So I can somewhat understand where these people's frustrations comes from. That doesn't make them right of course! SteveBaker (talk) 02:53, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Of course, Zero Point Energy is also a handy, impressive, buzzword because people can google it and get lots of genuine hits, just like they can google the words with which someone like Tom Bearden peppers his exhortations. It's just that when you put them together, they're meaningless. This sort of semi-meaningful techno-babble dates back at least to the Keely Motor, in the late 19th century, which Keely claimed drew energy from the "luminiferous ether" (actually not a totally crazy claim at the time). In fact, it drew energy from a hidden pneumatic system.Prebys (talk) 19:38, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

SECRECY ORDER
'''SECRECY ORDER

(TITLE 35, UNITED STATES CODE (1952), SECTIONS 181-188)

NOTICE: TO THE APPLICANT ABOVE NAMED, HIS HEIRS, AND ANY AND ALL OF HIS ASSIGNEES, ATTORNEYS AND AGENTS, HEREINAFTER DESIGNATED PRINCIPALS:

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT YOUR APPLICATION AS ABOVE IDENTIFIED HAS BEEN FOUND TO CONTAIN SUBJECT MATTER, THE UNAUTHORIZED DISCLOSURE OF WHICH MIGHT BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE NATIONAL SECURITY, AND YOU ARE ORDERED IN NOWISE TO PUBLISH OR DISCLOSE THE INVENTION OR ANY MATERIAL INFORMATION WITH RESPECT THERETO, INCLUDING HITHERTO UNPUBLISHED DETAILS OF THE SUBJECT MATTER OF SAID APPLICATION, IN ANY WAY TO ANY PERSON NOT COGNIZANT OF THE INVENTION PRIOR TO THE DATE OF THE ORDER, INCLUDING ANY EMPLOYEE OF THE PRINCIPALS, BUT TO KEEP THE SAME SECRET EXCEPT BY WRITTEN CONSENT FIRST OBTAINED OF THE COMMISSIONER OF PATENTS, UNDER THE PENALTIES OF 35 U.S.C. (1952) 182, 186.

ANY OTHER APPLICATION ALREADY FILED OR HEREAFTER FILED WHICH CONTAINS ANY SIGNIFICANT PART OF THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE ABOVE IDENTIFIED APPLICATION FALLS WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THIS ORDER. IF SUCH OTHER APPLICATION DOES NOT STAND UNDER A SECURITY ORDER, IT AND THE COMMON SUBJECT MATTER SHOULD BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE SECURITY GROUP, LICENSING AND REVIEW, PATENT OFFICE.

IF, PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF THE SECRECY ORDER, ANY SIGNIFICANT PART OF THE SUBJECT MATTER HAS BEEN REVEALED TO ANY PERSON, THE PRINCIPALS SHALL PROMPTLY INFORM SUCH PERSON OF THE SECRECY ORDER AND THE PENALTIES FOR IMPROPER DISCLOSURE. HOWEVER, IF SUCH PART OF THE SUBJECT MATTER WAS DISCLOSED TO ANY PERSON IN A FOREIGN COUNTRY OR FOREIGN NATIONAL IN THE U.S., THE PRINCIPALS SHALL NOT INFORM SUCH PERSON OF THE SECRECY ORDER, BUT INSTEAD SHALL PROMPTLY FURNISH TO THE COMMISSIONER OF PATENTS THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION TO THE EXTENT NOT ALREADY FURNISHED: DATE OF DISCLOSURE; NAME AND ADDRESS OF THE DISCLOSEE; IDENTIFICATION OF SUCH PART; AND ANY AUTHORIZATION BY A U.S. GOVERNMENT AGENCY TO EXPORT SUCH PART. IF THE SUBJECT MATTER IS INCLUDED IN ANY FOREIGN PATENT APPLICATION, OR PATENT, THIS SHOULD BE IDENTIFIED. THE PRINCIPALS SHALL COMPLY WITH ANY RELATED INSTRUCTIONS OF THE COMMISSIONER.

THIS ORDER SHOULD NOT BE CONSTRUED IN ANY WAY TO MEAN THAT THE GOVERNMENT HAS ADOPTED OR CONTEMPLATES ADOPTION OF THE ALLEGED INVENTION DISCLOSED IN THIS APPLICATION; NOR IS IT ANY INDICATION OF THE VALUE OF SUCH INVENTION.''' —Preceding unsigned comment added by Go-here.nl (talk • contribs) 19:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * This look like vandalism. Please explain its relevance, or it will be deleted.Prebys (talk) 20:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Well it's true that the US government is entitled to slap a secrecy order on any patent application...or on any other invention for that matter...if it is deemed critical to national security. However, that wouldn't apply to 'free energy' systems - only to things like weapons.  Also, it's only going to work if they do it BEFORE the patent is approved.  Once something is patented, it's out in the open for anyone to see and it's a bit late to be thinking about suppressing it! SteveBaker (talk) 23:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


 * There's no need to AGF on the part of the US government, which seems to be required for SteveBaker's second sentence to be relevant. I suppose it's theoretically possible that other inventions which violate the laws of physics were suppressed under a secrecy order.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin  (talk) 13:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


 * It's not a matter of "good faith". There are laws.  The long capitalised quote above is indeed part of US law - and it allows the US government to deny patent claims for items that would be a threat to national security.  So if (say) you invented a way to blow up an airliner in an manner undetectable to airport security - then your patent on such a device would almost certainly be denied and you'd get this oh-so-friendly letter...probably delivered by a bunch of serious-looking guys in black suits who talk into their sleeves a lot.  But as it clearly states, it relates to matters of national security - and would not apply in the case of a free-energy patent.  You might claim (as many have) that the US government would somehow suppress a free energy patent by some illegal means - but it wouldn't be legal and it wouldn't be covered by this document.  Hence this document is irrelevant to this article.  SteveBaker (talk) 14:26, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you aware of anyone who claims their free energy patent application was suppressed under the auspices of national security? AFAIK, the the vast majority of energy suppression accusations involve things for which designs and/or patents exist and are freely available on the web (e.g. Stanley Meyer), which leads one question exactly what form this "suppression" supposedly takes.Prebys (talk) 16:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, the conspiracy theorists have argued (even in this article) that such an invention would disrupt the US economy, which could arguably be considered a threat to national security.
 * And, if an invention were suppressed under a patent secrecy order, they couldn't talk about it, could they? (Well, I can't find anything in that phrasing which would prohibit the people named from stating that they are under a patent secrecy order, but there may be additional regulations under the PATRIOT ACT which would cover it.)
 * &mdash; Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I never understood how free energy would be a threat to national security for a country that is a net importer of energy. Sure - if the US was a net oil exporter, I could see good reasoning behind suppressing a cheap energy source.  But the US imports the stuff at huge expense and (some would argue) fights major wars in order to preserve it's ability to do that.  On that basis, free energy would be supported - not suppressed.  Notice, for example, all of the government money that's being pushed into windmills and ethanol production.  Of course this article MIGHT be about free energy suppression in countries that are net energy exporters - but I don't see that coming through.  The conspiracy nuts appear to be almost entirely American. SteveBaker (talk) 21:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, logic is the first casualty of this war. On the one hand, there are claims that these mysterious organizations have killed people to suppress this technology, while on the other hand, they claim that the same people invoke national security secresy acts (i.e. that they operate within the rule of law).  Add to that that most of the designs remain freely available after the supposed suppression has taken place, and it's very difficult and frustrating to determine exactly what is being claimed.Prebys (talk) 04:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * So we've got a hypothetical situation where the government could invoke the secrecy act to deny a patent application which might exist for something which might or might not work - even though, to my knowledge, no one has ever made this claim? Sounds a little weak for inclusion in the article. I suggest we drop the thread, since the OP has declined to defend it anyway.Prebys (talk) 18:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The OP claims to be a "multidimensional spirit being from the Pleiades star cluster in the constellation of Taurus." (see User:Go-here.nl) so there is no telling when he/she/it will be back in our neighbourhood to explain the posting. SteveBaker (talk) 21:52, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Good point. Maybe free energy is being suppressed over there. &mdash; Arthur Rubin  (talk) 23:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Could Go-here.nl please stop deleting the above comments. There is no policy against original research on talk pages, and only very limited circumstances in which material on talk pages may be deleted. If you object to the comments then please add text explaining why. LeContexte (talk) 05:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I guess the order could have a link in the article but that was not my point


 * So we've got a hypothetical situation where the government could invoke the secrecy act to deny a patent application which might exist for something which might or might not work

I consider this to be a great improvement over the previous paradigm where the consensus was me being some crank as well as all other inventors? (laughs) The could and might part is a great victory for the sanity of the discussion.

I read all devices submitted for a patent are screened by 6 different military agencies, if any of them considers your invention beneficial for military use you will get the thank you note above. The inventors has to stop inventing, then has to work for free informing everyone who knows about his invention about the secrecy order or face the consequences, supply A list of friends in other countries with name and address. Investments are zeroed out without any compensation that I know of.

If the invention was disclosed all around the world you get situations like that of Pantone and Meyer (see above).Go-here.nl (talk) 17:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, actually, in theory, the government is supposed to compensate you for the invention if they actually use it. Obviously, if I knew if that happened in fact, I would be violating the secrecy order by commenting.  Still, there are no claims made or referred to in reliable sources that this may have actually occurred, so it doesn't belong in the article.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin  (talk) 17:59, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


 * When you say "I read", it's good manners to say where, or everyone will assume you're just making stuff up as you go along. As for the statement about the military suppressing anything they find "beneficial", that's just silly. Computers, bulldozers, and suntan lotion are all very beneficial to the military, and those haven't been suppressed.  As for Pantone and Meyer, you're making my case for me. All of their designs are available to the public. They simply don't work, and the "inventors" were justly convicted of fraud.  The system worked.  As I said, arguments based entirely on hypothetical situations are not up to Wikipedia standards.Prebys (talk) 19:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


 * There are certainly well-documented cases of this happening. Sometime in the 1950's, Hughes tried to patent a scheme for spinning a satellite around two axes in order to stabilise it in orbit (yes, they patented it before any satellites had ever been launched) - the government stepped in and took it away from them on grounds of national security (think spinning ICBM's) and the court case went on for about 40 years - costing Hughes a small fortune in license fees.  But I VERY much doubt that there are six departments of the US government looking at every single patent.  The US patent office is totally overrun with patents - they spend just a few minutes on each one on the average.  If there were six other organizations of similar size and manpower doing that same job, the government would have shut all but one of them down a long time ago!  It's much more likely that a part of the job of the patent office is to screen for possible security issues and to pass on whatever they find to the relevent authority.  SteveBaker (talk) 23:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't doubt it occurs, I was merely challenging the OP's insinuation that the law was applied capriciously to anything the military thought was useful (or in this case, to devices that don't work anyway). But we're really digressing.  The point is, unless someone can produce a source where this is claimed even hypothetically outside of musings on blogs and talk pages, it doesn't belong in the article.Prebys (talk) 17:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes - I agree. SteveBaker (talk) 00:58, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Cold fusion
It is with interest that I note that we now have a section on cold fusion.

Cold fusion (if it worked) wouldn't technically be free energy - it would be fusion power - which consumes fuel and produces less-energetic waste much like any other non-free energy source. Arguably, that means that it should not be included in the article. It's also arguable that the technology (such as it is) has not been suppressed since all of the papers that were ever published on the topic are still freely available. What has been (arguably) suppressed is the ability of dissenting scientists to continue beating a dead horse.

IMHO, it's close enough to 'free-energy' and close enough to 'suppressed' to perhaps make it worthy of inclusion. But there is enough doubt in my mind that I feel we should debate it a little.

Cold fusion is unusual in this 'genre' in that it was initially believed to be scientifically plausible - whereas most 'free energy' claims are obviously false to anyone with a solid scientific background. But because the mainstay of the original claim was the detection of free neutrons (a sure sign that something 'special' was going on), and the original claimants were reputable scientists, the experimental results were initially believed by many. However, once the experiment was repeated and the very few free neutrons accounted for by other means, then this unlikely process was shown to be inoperable (at least to the degree necessary to convince most scientists). But there have been some serious reports of dissenting scientists having their views on cold fusion suppressed - and although some reports of this having happened have been discounted - I think there is a case to be argued that scientific freedom was impinged upon.

It would be nice for the balance of the article to have at least ONE example where the actual suppression of a claim could be somewhat substantiated. (So long as we are careful to find references to support the suppression claim - and wrap the thing with caveats about it not being 'free' energy).

SteveBaker (talk) 13:51, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Over time, the scope of "free energy" covered in this article keeps drifting - cold fusion, solar cells, renewable energy generally. As you say, this is not "free energy"; there is also a complete absence of evidence (save, in the case of solar cells, some form of legal claim lodged with the California Public Utilities Commission - not an appropriate source). If we are going to have articles covering obscure conspiracy theories, surely we should at least ensure the articles stick to the conspiracy theory in question? LeContexte (talk) 06:38, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, the term "free energy" is not well defined, since nothing is entirely free to implement. Notice, for example, that while there's an article on "Free energy suppression", there's no article on "Free energy" (and I'm probably not the guy to start one). One could argue that the term should only apply to solar or claims of perpetual motion, but I that is at odds with the colloquial usage. I recently gave a lecture on the history of free energy scams, and for the purposes of the lecture, I defined "free energy" as claims about "transformative technologies" that:
 * would dramatically reduce personal energy cost, either for domestic use or for transportation (say a factor of four or more)
 * were non-centralized.
 * did not require lifestyle changes.
 * had very modest capital costs (would pay for themselves within a year or so).
 * Granted, I specifically chose this definition because I wanted to include things like cold fusion and Joseph Newman, but it seems to be consistent with general usage. As for the "scope-creep" in the article, just be glad we've kept 9/11, the moon landing, and Kennedy out of it (so far).Prebys (talk) 15:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It's certainly a tricky term - I'd be just as uncomfortable with describing solar power as 'free' as cold fusion. When you install a solar panel, you are absorbing sunlight that would otherwise have either been absorbed by the ground beneath - or that would have been reflected back out into space (probably the latter if your solar panels are efficient ones).  Doing that causes a net heating of the planet when the energy is finally used for something and turned back into heat.  Covering large areas of the earth's surface with solar panels would cause a new variety of global warming.  That's not to say that solar is a bad thing - it's just that thermodynamically, there is NEVER such a thing as a free lunch.  I (personally) define free-energy as anything that would violate the first and/or second laws of thermodynamics - which does indeed rule out wind, solar and cold-fusion.  However, I think this article should take on a slightly broader interpretation. SteveBaker (talk) 16:41, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I should have pointed out that while for some solar exemplifies "free energy", it did not satisfy my definition because currently the capital cost is too large. I do think cold fusion belongs here because even though it doesn't necessarily violate any physical laws, I think most people would agree that the vast majority of cold-fusion claims are supported by extremely bad science.Prebys (talk) 16:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I have reworded the intro slightly. There is nothing about cold fusion that necessarily violates physical laws, at least not in the way perpetual motion machines do. It's just that it almost certainly doesn't occur as claimed. In fact Muon-catalyzed fusion is arguably "cold fusion", and that's quite established. Unfortunately, it has no practical applications.Prebys (talk) 14:48, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Right. Check out Bubble fusion for another example - however, as you say, they aren't really practical ways to generate useful amounts of energy. SteveBaker (talk) 03:39, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Theory Analysis - original research/cite sources
I do not want to get involved in a debate with any side of the "truth" of this subject, however the "theory analysis" section is,it seems, essentially Original Research. There needs to be either sources cited or it needs to be removed. I don't contend with any of the assertions in that section however without sources and written as is it seems to be an editors analysis of the theory in question and therefore Original Research.

Oh and no, Mythbusters is not a source; it's neither a peer reviewed journal nor a recognised scientific source. Feel free to put a section about mythbusters and their experience, though this does not justify this section. Master z0b (talk) 05:34, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, Mythbusters is a source, per WP:FRINGE. &mdash; Arthur Rubin  (talk) 11:29, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

You accidentally hit the nail on the head. Mythbusters is known to be a show for laughs. At the same time it is also the most popular science program we have on this planet.*sound of cricklets* If they show say your product as something that doesn't work on a show like that then it's going to harm you enormously. Imagine you have invented something and some one goes debunk you on global television.

Anyone can make a hydrogen cell for his car. If it is a success time will tell. But in the mythbusters episode where they build a cell from an Internet plan their circuit does not electrolyse the water at all. They then hook up the cell to the car. But look how it doesn't produce any hydrogen gas at all. It's not that there is something wrong with the plan, they just didn't get the circuit to work at all.

Any honest person would at least try to get it to work at least a little bit THEN you can stick it in the car and show it doesn't work. But in stead they attach the bucket of water to the car and pretend it should work now. As if there wasn't enough disinformation already?

No offence but for some reason you felt the need to explain to us that mythbusters is not science? As if this would not be obvious to us? The whole point is that this is what others precept as science.

Imagine what happens to their advertisement revenue if they explain to the world how to run a car on mostly water. It would be like a dry well the next day. The whole show is an infomercial in that way. It's the most viewed science program in the world - but it has no science in it. *shrug* Gdewilde (talk) 21:36, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Be careful...it's a question of what Mythbusters are being used as a source for. The article states that: The American TV show MythBusters has examined some claimed free energy sources. All of the tried methods failed. - and backs it up with a reference to the TV show in which this happened.  As a source for the statement that Mythbusters did this, it's a perfectly fine primary reference.  As a source for saying that all free energy sources are false - it's a rather poor source.  However, WP:FRINGE allows for things that might ordinarily be considered borderline OR to be used in order to avoid undue weight when mainstream science does not routinely need to report on things that are clearly in breach of fundamental scientific principles.  I strongly recommend that User:Master z0b gets familiar with WP:FRINGE before asserting that there is an OR issue to defend. SteveBaker (talk) 14:25, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Things don't actually have to work to be debunked.


 * But look at the overall Tee Vee coverage? What about global warming? What about war for oil? What about diminishing resources? What about mass starvation? What about the future of the economy? Water shortage? Floods? Those must all be unimportant subjects? If this for example isn't a big deal under any of those topics I really don't know what is?
 * Gdewilde (talk) 22:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Pantone is a fraud, which makes it a big deal nowhere, other than court. — NRen2k5 (TALK), 18:36, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I actually wasn't aware of WP:FRINGE, (thanks SteveBaker) however the main point I made I think is still entirely relevant. Even if Mythbusters is a reliable source, it's conclusions that these machines don't work doesn't justify the entire Theory Analysis section. Even the title "Theory Analysis" suggests Original Research, whose analysis is it and where are the sources for statements such as "governments have not imprisoned individuals for research concerning solar cells, windmills, and geothermal energy production,"? The last two paragraphs of this section have no references or sources as far as I can tell. WP:FRINGE states: "Ideas that have been rejected, are widely considered to be absurd or pseudoscientific, only of historical interest, or primarily the realm of science fiction, should be documented as such, using reliable sources.". I have no problem with using Mythbusters as a source now that I have been corrected, however the last two sentences make statements that seem to be someone's person musings rather than arguments cited from a reliable source. It is exactly what it claims to be; "Theory Analysis" and WP:NOR clearly includes "unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position.". I don't care whether it's true or not, I only care about Wikipedia standards. Master z0b (talk) 07:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Add Oil Companies to Theory Analysis
I have yet to see a paragraph in these "free energy" articles on wiki that could disprove the influence of oil companies in suppression. We all know that oil companies around the world have a tight hold on governments and their huge influence alone might be enough for suppression of free energy. For this discussion, I'd like cite the EV1 as an example of corporate interests getting in the way (ie. claims of GM, Fuel Cell & oil companies suppressing electric car).207.34.120.71 (talk) 23:03, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Is an electric car really an example of "free energy"? And is GM withdrawing the car from the market really a case of "suppression"? LeContexte (talk) 10:21, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Certainly an electric car isn't an example of free energy - the electricity for these cars is going to have to be made by conventional, non-free methods. In the US, that means that maybe half the energy to run that car comes from coal...which is probably the least 'free' energy technology imaginable!  But I don't understand why people accuse GM of suppressing anything.


 * The EV1 was a limited test program to allow GM to get a wealth of practical experience with a significant production run and real customer experience. They laid this out VERY clearly to the customers chosen to participate.  They told them up-front they could only lease the cars and that they would never be allowed to own them.  They even had limited mileage clauses for some of the customers because GM wanted to examine the state of the cars after varying number of miles of use.  When the experiment had run it's course and GM had the data they needed, they ended the program and took back the cars as they said they would from the very start.  That's a perfectly reasonable way to experiment with a new and unknown technology.  I don't understand how doing such a very public experiment counts as "suppression".


 * Complaints (and conspiracy theories) surrounding the fact that GM disposed of the cars by crushing them when people were happy - even anxious - to buy them, misses the problem of red tape in really big companies.  Had they sold them, there would have had to be new departments created to do that, internal book-keeping - spare parts storage - that kind of stuff.  Crushing them was cheap.  If you've ever worked for a big company, you'd see this all the time.  For example, in one company I worked for (Philips), the cost of processing a purchase order through the 'system' for anything from a 3 cent screw to a computer was the same...about $100.  Just this one part of the puzzle inflates the cost of short production runs unimaginably.  If you plan to make 100,000 cars then the addition of $100 to your order for 100,000 3 cent screws adds a tenth of a penny to the cost of that screw - and to the cost of every other part of the car too...it's negligable.  But if you only build 1,000 cars then the cost of purchasing adds 10 cents to the cost of a 3 cent screw - pretty soon the cost of processing purchase orders becomes the largest part of building the car!  Big companies just aren't able to do small-scale things efficiently.  A small company will have a much lighter-weight process.  The guy on the production line needs more screws - he goes to the boss and gets him to sign the purchase order - and it takes 2 minutes and costs the company maybe $1 to process it.  That company can make a profitable short production run that GM could never manage.   Multiply that up with all of the other overheads big companies impose and you soon realise that they really can't afford to do ANYTHING on a small scale...and that includes selling a couple of hundred left-over electric cars.


 * GM sell cars - they don't care whether the car runs on gas or hydrogen, electricity, water or pixie dust. If they can make them in economic quantities, sell them at a profit, not lose their shirts on service plans and liability claims - then they are happy.  As far as I know, GM don't own any oil companies - they aren't owned by oil companies - what do they care if "Big Oil" suffers?   If "Big Oil" had some kind of power over GM then how would they be able to make hybrids?   If electric cars were economically viable at scales that their factories demand - then you can trust that GM would be making a killing on them.


 * Meanwhile, buy a ZAP Xebra. SteveBaker (talk) 14:09, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I would have to ask who makes and deals car parts? If what they say in the movie is true, then relatively the electric car needs hardly any maintenance or replacement parts (ie. dirty combustion engine).  Also I didn't say that the electric car was "free energy" but I wanted to use its example as an example of so-called suppression.  Ok, I will point out the marketing campaign for the EV1.  Being buried under the promise of hydrogen fuel cells for the future, I never heard of such a car until I saw the movie.  Why put so much damn money into making the car and then restrict sales so much?  Electric cars aren't exactly new technology so I don't see why they only wanted to experiment with them.  The only thing that's really new is the battery technology, which I may add was bought out by GM, then Texaco, and now Chevron.  Only recently have they started to incorporate their technology into hybrids.  Also, what about that comment about the electric car being better for the environment even if coal was used to provide energy?


 * Still, it's not too hard to see the oil companies lobbying for the preservation of their industry seeing as how there are still trillions of dollars worth of barrels of oil to be found. They have much more money than any other industries can claim to have; therefore, they have more sway in government policy.  Is there something wrong with my logic here?  Morality wise, business men can be shrewd.  Money is a good motive for anything.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.34.120.71 (talk) 20:28, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The reason I'm bringing this discussion up is because I noticed in the "Theory Analysis" section, there are still no statements to refute the claim about the oil company's influence. 207.34.120.71 (talk) 20:31, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * There are also no sourced statements to support the claim. &mdash; Arthur Rubin  (talk) 22:12, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Oil companies are NOT stupid. They can see the writing on the wall even more clearly than the rest of us.  That's why they are diversifying into things like battery technology.  Now is the perfect time for them to do that - they have tons of money sloshing around in their bank accounts - buying competing technologies AND INVESTING IN THEM is by far the smartest thing.  They can do that now when buying a battery company is cheap.  If they wait until electricity (or whatever) starts eating into their profits then the battery companies will become so powerful that they crush the oil companies like bugs.  If you are an oil company, you're in trouble.  If you are a diversified oil-and-battery-and-hydrogen-and-whatever company then you're future is assured no matter how things go. SteveBaker (talk) 22:25, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Oil companies have so much money that they can just buy out whatever they want and then quietly forget about them while they rake in billions saying that no other cheap technology besides those that use oil exist. From a business point of view, that makes perfect sense.  207.34.120.71 (talk) 18:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * It would even make sense to have people right here on wikipeidia to push such agenda. People who can spell the words special interest group but will vigerously deny such groups could ever acomplish anything. Where they will equate commercials with product information and claim news agencies can only speak the truth. LOL
 * In 1973 Royal Dutch Shell build a car that did over 380 MPG. Sure this was on a test track and it didn't go faster as 30 MPH but still it is 35 years ago. Today we should be able to build cars that do 150 MPG and drive 80 MPH. Old crook Nixon made it the law for new cars to have ever improved milage. Today we have SUV's that preform worse then the cars we had when Nixon moved into office.
 * President Cartner created laws for cheap solar power. Ronny Ray Gun removed those laws and gave us wars in stead.


 * Asking newspapers to inform the public about this has no effect[]
 * Go-here.nl (talk) 19:44, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

(RESETTING INDENT)

Let's be a bit careful about this. That 1973 380mpg car looked more like a recumbant bicycle that only carried one person and only made 30mph and then only on level ground and very smooth roads...that's hardly something you'd call a "car"...certainly not a practical one.

But I agree that in many cases modern vehicles get much worse MPG than older models. Does that imply some kind of sneaky suppression of technology?

I don't think so.

I have a 2007 MINI Cooper'S and a 1963 Mini. The '07 gets 35 to 40mpg - the '63 model gets 55mpg. So what happened? Did the car company suppress some really clever 1960's technology? No...no way. I've crawled over every inch of my '63 car in the course of restoring it...if there was something super-clever in there, I'd know it!

Mostly what happened is that the 2007 car got two feet longer, a foot wider and six inches taller - and it DOUBLED in weight (literally: 1300lbs in 1963, 2600lbs in 2007). But it also went from an 850cc engine to 1600cc and gained a turbocharger. It went from 37hp to 145hp, 0-60 times went from 28 seconds to 6 seconds and top speed went from 70mph to 140mph. The new car has air-conditioning, power steering and power-assisted brakes - all of those things eat power. The '63 car wouldn't pass modern emissions tests (it doesn't have to - it's more than 25 years old, so it's exempt). It wouldn't pass safety laws either: without seatbelts, crumple-zones, airbags, safety glass, head restraints or side-impact-protection it's a death-trap.

So despite the fact that modern engines can produce roughly twice the horsepower for the same fuel consumption, they are being used to drive bigger, heavier cars with much greater consumer performance expectations. The new MINI isn't the only example of this - the exact same thing has happened to all sorts of cars over the years. Compare an early-model Honda Civic to a modern one - or a classic VW bug with a modern one - it's exactly the same deal throughout the automotive industry.

So this isn't a case of suppression - it's a case of increased customer expectations and increased government safety and environmental laws.

If you only had to meet 1960's regulations and 1960's expectations and yet you could use 2008 technology, I'd guess that you could hit 100mpg with conventional gasoline engines - and perhaps 150mpg with a hybrid. But when you double the top speed of a car, you quadruple the horsepower it needs. When you double the weight and halve your 0-60 time expectations then you quadruple the horsepower it needs. You can see clearly that engines have indeed quadrupled in power since 1960 but it should be no surprise that they consume about twice as much gas because fuel efficiency has 'merely' doubled over the last 50 years.

So - there is no technology suppression here. We simply need to downgrade our performance and comfort expectations - and accept much higher numbers of deaths in traffic accidents. I don't see that happening - so I don't expect to see a PRACTICAL 150mpg car out there for another 50 years.

SteveBaker (talk) 05:54, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * There is no reason to make a car 2 times as heavy.


 * you are talking complete nonsense. Your answer is under point 4:


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Genepax#Let_it_play_out_i_say.21


 * That is how the suppression is done Steve Baker.


 * Gdewilde (talk) 20:14, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * In response to:
 * There is no reason to make a car 2 times as heavy.
 * the answer in in the phrases already listed:
 * … crumple-zones, airbags, safety glass, head restraints or side-impact-protection …
 * &mdash; Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:53, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * My first thought was that I always stick a banana in my ear to wear off the Terrorists. But okay...
 * conservation of mass and momentum dictates the heavier car does more damage. You already have a few hundred engineers trying to explain that to you?


 * I'm sorry but according to the Ministry of Silly Walks yours is not silly enough. Gdewilde (talk) 22:40, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * In 1938, as a result of the Great Depression and in common with other luxury car makers, such as Maybach, Pierce-Arrow was forced to stop production.[]


 * That depression seems compleatly staged by bankers. For example people didn't have food but it was apparantly a good time to forbid hemp. Which supplied clothing, food, fuel and paper. Henry Ford made plastics and even whole cars out of the stuff. Ford's idea was to grow cars out of the soil. And he was successfull at it. AND:


 * "There's enough alcohol in one year's yeild of an acre of potatoes to drive the machinery necessary to cultivate the fields for one hundred years." - Henry Ford [] Gdewilde (talk) 23:32, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes - Ford was probably correct. "Alcohol" is "Ethanol" (it's the same chemical).  I assume that carbohydrates from potatoes can be used to produce ethanol just like carbohydrates from corn and sugar cane are - so Ford was predicting that the amount of ethanol it takes to cultivate an acre of production is 1% of the total ethanol production from a 1 acre field. (That's what "one year's yield powers 100 year's production" means - right?).  Of course you have to include the energy it takes for convert the carbohydrate into ethanol - which is not insignificant.  But was he right?  Well, yes - I think he was.  Sadly, the energy cost of "cultivation" isn't the problem - it's the cost of refining the carbohydrates into ethanol that kills you.  But look at some real figures for this: Sugar cane production in Brazil has an 'energy efficiency' of around 8 to 10 (see the table at the bottom of Ethanol fuel) - so one year of plant growth powers about 8 to 10 years of cultivation and refining - if cultivation is 10% of the energy cost and refining is 90% then Henry Ford guessed exactly right! (He was a smart guy!)  Sadly, US corn-based ethanol for production is horribly inefficient - one year's production only powers 1.3 years of production/refining (Jeez! That's terrible!) - but the ethanol in our gasoline isn't there as a fuel so much as it is a means of reducing tailpipe emissions and Ethanol is a lot safer than the Methyl tert-butyl ether that we used to use!


 * But the idea that the energy used during actual CULTIVATION (ie powering farm machinery, fertilizer production, etc) is only 1% of the energy produced wouldn't surprise me at all - and using potatoes instead of sugar cane or corn or sawgrass or whatever is almost certainly possible. So Ford was probably about right.


 * But what's your point here?


 * Is this suppressed? (NO! The US government is putting a small fortune into biomass ethanol production - 10% of the gasoline in the tank of my car is ethanol from corn, it says so right there on the gas pump! Brazil powers 40% of it's cars from biomass ethanol - it's also used extensively in Sweden and to a lesser extent in a dozen other countries).
 * Is this free energy? (NO! It's energy from the sun that powers the plant growth - so this is a solar power by another route).  Henry Ford certainly had a viable idea - he didn't guess the right plant - but then I doubt we'll be using corn for this much longer - sawgrass seems like the number one choice.
 * Bottom line - yes, you're right, Henry Ford did say that and he might have been right - BUT IT HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS ARTICLE! (sheesh!)
 * SteveBaker (talk) 13:43, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Kudos! This thread is really straying from the topic. While "free energy" is not a particularly well defined term, it is clearly NOT: Let's please use this talk page to improve this article.Prebys (talk) 17:14, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * electric cars
 * biodiesel, etc.
 * high mileage concept cars

Witch-hunt is essentially the same article
Why not have this section under Free_energy_suppression?


 * ''A witch-hunt is a search for witches or evidence of witchcraft, often involving moral panic, mass hysteria and mob lynching, but in historical instances also legally sanctioned and involving official witchcraft trials.


 * The classical period of witch-hunts in Europe falls into the Early Modern period or about 1450 to 1700, spanning the upheavals of the Reformation and the Thirty Years' War, resulting in tens of thousands of executions.


 * Many cultures throughout the world, both ancient and modern, have reacted to allegations of witchcraft either with superstitious fear and awe, and killed any alleged practitioners of witchcraft outright; or, shunned it as quackery, extortion or fraud.  Witch-hunts still occur in the modern era in many communities where religious values condemn the practice of witchcraft and the occult.


 * The term "witch-hunt" is often used to refer to similarly panic-induced searches for perceived wrong-doers other than witches. The best known example is probably the McCarthyist search for communists during the Cold War.''

I don't see anything wrong with that.

Gdewilde (talk) 22:03, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Why is witch-hunt related to this article, aside from your copying? &mdash; Arthur Rubin  (talk) 22:12, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


 * To those who believe in free energy and who also believe that it's being actively suppressed by authorities intent on victimising individuals - then perhaps the term "witch hunt" would be applicable as a loose description of what they might believe was going on. However, we do not normally include large chunks of distantly related articles  - so even if you were to wish to write the article from the POV of the believers, including this material would be highly inappropriate.  At most, inclusion of a link to Witch hunt in the "See Also" section might be appropriate - but that would be a horribly POV link because it would strongly imply that free energy suppression is indeed a witch hunt - when in fact, this article has so far failed to come up with a single concrete, referenceable case of free energy suppression - let alone that such suppression constituted a witch hunt. SteveBaker (talk) 03:58, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Unless he's trying to claim witches knew how to make free energy (and you never know with these people), then any reference (even in "see also") would be extremely silly.Prebys (talk) 14:52, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It was so big in order for you to help slim it down to this topic. Perhaps my intention are more clear if I give an example. I was also planing to write/cut-down a section about moral panic.
 * In sociology, a moral panic is a reaction by a group of people based on the false or exaggerated perception that some cultural behavior or group, frequently a minority group or a subculture, is dangerously deviant and poses a menace to society. It has also been more broadly defined as an "episode, condition, person or group of persons" that has in recent times been "defined as a threat to societal values and interests." They are byproducts of controversies that produce arguments and social tension, or aren't easily discussed as some of these moral panics are taboo to many people. Characterization of the group reaction as a moral panic requires a presumption that the group's perceptions are unfounded or exaggerated. These reactions are often fueled by media coverage or propaganda around a social issue, although semi-spontaneous moral panics do occur. Mass hysteria can be an element in these movements, but moral panic is different from mass hysteria in that a moral panic is specifically framed in terms of morality and is usually expressed as outrage rather than fear. Moral panics (as defined by Cohen) revolve around a perceived threat to a value or norm held by a society normally stimulated by glorification within the mass media or 'folk legend' within societies. Panics have a number of outcomes, with one being the certification to the players within the panic that what they are doing appears to warrant observation by mass media and therefore may push them further into the activities that led to the original feeling of moral panic.
 * That would restore the balance again. Of course neither section really needs to be longer than a few lines. I think we can cut it down to the essential points. I do think the witch hunt is a classical example of people attacking things for the silly reason they do not know what it is. Just like they panic for the same non-reasons.
 * Only in the free energy topic you find people who get murdered while others claim that is because they are seeking attention.
 * See how you yourself keep lying about Paul Pantone on talk pages. No offence but it's the best example I could think of. You don't owe me any explanation but I'm sure you don't have to deny it to yourself either. lol


 * Pantone was imprisoned for good old fashioned securities fraud (not surprising after he hooked up with the likes of Dennis Lee)Prebys (talk) 19:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * [deleted irrelevant elaboration]
 * Gdewilde (talk) 10:06, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * To select some minor details, which is adequate to destroy the credibility of the above rant, he had a trial, in which he was found guilty of fraud. He's awaiting sentencing.  Although I have doubts that he was competent during the trial, I have little doubt he is not competent to rationally comment during the sentencing, and he's (attempted to) fire his lawyer, so it cannot be said that he can appear at the sentencing by counsel.  As the sentence involves monetary claims (which I believe are not dishargable in bankruptcy, even if the patent is not considered an asset by the bankruptcy court), he clearly may loose rights to the invention, so it would be wrong for him to be sentenced without his knowing participation.


 * The claims of Pantone and of the plasmatron are only the same in that the exhaust is routed by the fuel as a preheater. The plasmatron claims to actually do something specific with the heat of the exhaust.  Whether or not it works (I recall student pranks at CalTech, and a hoax on the scientific establishment is well within the bounds of what might be considered a "prank", although I'd hope that they'd admit it by now if it were a prank), it's not apparently the same.


 * And, relevant to this article, the plasmatron is not apparently being suppressed. It's still being worked on by MIT.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin  (talk) 13:07, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * [deleted More rants, not related to improving this per request below]

Gdewilde (talk) 14:56, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * More rants, not related to improving this (or any other present Wikipedia) article, and constituting a personal attack on me. No further comment is needed, even if the material were accurate.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin  (talk) 18:23, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I really don't intend to attack you, I'm sorry if you take it that way. I'm just trying to explain how things look from here. I have deleted my irrelevant comments.

Gdewilde (talk) 21:11, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Is this guy for real?! — NRen2k5 (TALK), 12:27, 27 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Sadly, yes. SteveBaker (talk) 15:22, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Why is free energy suppression such a commonplace meme?
''for rant see the show button {J. D. Redding 13:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)} >>>>

SteveBaker (talk) 15:16, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

alternative free renewable energy details. J. D. Redding 01:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Please do not edit other editors comments - it's considered exceedingly rude. I believe it's important that this article contain some explanation for WHY free energy suppression is such a common meme - and I have a perfect right to discuss that here on the article's talk page.  If you have something meaningful to add to the debate - or if you wish to dispute what I said - then you are more than welcome to do so.  But suppressing free energy suppression comments is just too weird! SteveBaker (talk) 05:16, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The above rant does nothing to improve the article. That is what the talk page is for ... and I didn't "suppress" your comment. I minimized it ... it was perfectly available [ala. 'show' link. Sheesh. J. D. Redding 13:37, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Generalize
Free energy suppression only describes one highly specialized aspect of its associated subject (e.g., perpetual motion machines).

Please help improve this article by adding more general information (the general conspiracy, ET belief of tech, etc ...).

J. D. Redding 14:59, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * If you look at the article its primary concern is not perpetual motion machines. By my account its a general description of the belief and then a listing of a few well documented examples of where free energy suppression has been widely attributed.  The "general conspiracy" seems to be treated well.  When you say general information it appears you actually mean more specific examples?  If you want "ET belief of tech, etc ..." please give an example or better yet find the documentation and add the material yourself.--OMCV (talk) 15:15, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

The generalize tag needs to be reinstated. J. D. Redding 15:27, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't see it, either. If you can point to things which are called "free energy suppression" which aren't covered in the article, please name them.  (Alternative fuels, such as ethanol or hydrogen, clearly do not apply, as there's no claim being made of "free" or even "low cost".)   &mdash; Arthur Rubin  (talk) 15:43, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Needs the generalize template. May need a NPOV tag too ... J. D. Redding 16:22, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Tags are great and all (if your into that sort of thing) but some specific suggestions would be even better.--OMCV (talk) 16:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion? Stop removing large sections of the information. ... J. D. Redding 18:51, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * This article isn't about "Standards for assessing conspiracies" so a section concerning that is inappropriate on this page. In addition that text has been copied from the conspiracy theory page, which is the right place for the information. A link to this section in the text would be worth while.  In addition the information in "Testing the validity of conspiracy theories" is written in the form of leading questions.  This is inappropriate for a encyclopedia which should be rewritten in clear concise statements. So this needs to be fixed.  Reddi if you think your reasoning is better than mine please explain yourself, otherwise I'm sure someone will delete the "Standards for assessing conspiracies" section.--OMCV (talk) 19:16, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

There is a section on assessing them! The keypoints have been copied from the right place for the information (which are also written in the form of leading questions). If you rewrite them rewrite these ... otherwise keep them in.

The entries (eg akkedge suppression of free energy technologies items) and supporting referenced analysis of each need to be applied to the article.

Expand and generalize this article. thanks. J. D. Redding 19:32, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I disagree with decorating the article with unnecessary tags. If you think it's incomplete or insufficiently general, then you need to point out what precisely it's lacking - if you can do so, then let's write about it instead of cluttering up the article with tags.  If you can't tell us what's lacking then how do you know it's incomplete or insufficiently general in the first place?  First discuss in talk - then (and only then) consider tagging. SteveBaker (talk) 13:09, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the Expand tag is appropriate (or was. SteveBaker seems to be doing a pretty good job); however, I'm not sure what Reddi is arguing for with generalize tag. This article is about the alleged suppression of free energy.  Reddi appears to wish to expand it to include both the alleged suppression of things besides free energy (such as the electric car) as well as free energy claims where no suppression is being claimed (such as the Bauman refrerence). That would quickly make the article too long and to general to be of any use.Prebys (talk) 16:23, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Expand the content in general and generalize to not just the "bad oil company" tired old line .... expand it to include both the alleged suppression self-imposed (Bauman refrerence) and other types ... J. D. Redding 02:21, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * There is nothing in the article limiting it to "bad oil companies", so that still falls under expand. In fact, the cold fusion section states that some of the suppression is coming from academia. I'm not sure what "alleged self-imposed suppression" means, since you've provided no details or references for your claims about Baumann (sorry, the link to the town doesn't count). Rather than complaining, you might try actually improving the article. Just a thought.Prebys (talk) 16:01, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Speaking of Baumann, in addition to spelling his name wrong, you refer to him on one occasion as a "German engineer". Isn't he Swiss?Prebys (talk) 16:12, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Why expansion "in general"? You want the article to be more verbose?  Longer sentences?  Bigger words?  Maybe we should use a larger font?  What?!?!   If you mean it's lacking some pertinent information then please tell us exactly what that information is - and if what you have is relevent, sourced and notable - we'll be only to happy to include it.  But just saying "I want more" is utterly unproductive - particularly if you stick into a bloody great ugly box at the top of the article so you can shout your demand to all of our readers.  If you have a specific problem - let's talk...but if you just have a vague feeling of inadequacy...um...well, this is not the place!


 * Personally - I'm happy with the size and scope of the article "as is". It covers the ground with some REAL examples of things that might be argued are suppression - and it explains that this kind of thing is generally urban legend.  So it's balanced, it covers some actual cases and offers further reading - it's interesting - and it covers a rather difficult subject with a certain delicacy...what more do you want?   I'm happy to add more if there is some whole aspect of this alleged supression that we've missed - but if you're saying this just because you hope that more material will support your views better or dilute what we've already said - then you really need to come up with specific, relevent, sourced and notable 'stuff' - not just vague "drive-by" tagging.


 * SteveBaker (talk) 02:15, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Casimir Effect and Zero Point Energy.
I'm going to remove the image and caption for the Casimir Effect. On careful reading around the subject, it seems that we're confusing "vacuum energy" (which the Casimir Effect uses and demonstrates) with "zero point energy" which is merely invoked in the explanation for the Casimir effect. It would be nice to have something like this in the article - but we have to get the science part right if we're going to conjoin the Casimir effect with the free energy movements' love of "zero point energy".

The Casimir effect demonstrates the existance of a force - but (and this is a common mistake which MANY perpetual motion machine designers make) a force does not indicate the presence of an energy source. Forces and energy are not the same thing at all. So claiming that some hypothetical device might work because of the Casimir effect is simply a confusion of force and energy.

Zero point energy is merely the lowest possible energy anything can have - the reason IT is such a common meme amongst the free energy community is that it sounds like an energy source. If they spent just a couple of minutes reading about it, they'd know that you can't extract this energy precisely because it's defined as the least amount of energy anything can have. Extracting energy from an object that only has zero point energy left would leave it with less than zero...which is a contradiction of the very definition of the term.

So we shouldn't conflate Casimir with Zero point - they are completely different things and they confuse the free energy people for completely different reasons.

But either way - what has this to do with suppression? Are researchers into either field being suppressed? From the large number of mainstream science papers appearing on those topics in peer reviewed journals, it appears not.

SteveBaker (talk) 13:26, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Removed "history"
After all of SteveBaker's work, it wasn't clear how "history" was distinct from "specific allegations", so I moved Cold fusion to "specific allegations.." and merged "history" into "description...".Prebys (talk) 20:30, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah - that's better. Thanks! SteveBaker (talk) 20:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Technology Suppression
Now I would like to say up front that I don't believe that free energy exists. But I do think it important to represent the full argument offered by those who do believe in "free energy". This includes identifying previous instances where the auto industry/ oil industry suppressed (or are attributed to have suppressed) technology. The most prominent examples are the great American streetcar scandal and the electric vehicle. I'm not taking a position on the validity of these subject only putting forward the popular argument. Steve offered that auto makers would "love" "free energy" because than they could sell more SUVs. Looking into the mind of an auto company and claiming how it "feels" about "free energy" and thus rendering this argument null is only one perspective. Ascribing motivations to corporations is a tricky business at best. Better just to look for an MO. You might find it a poor argument but none the less it is not an uncommon one. Reword it as you see fit.--OMCV (talk) 13:33, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that we cannot ascribe motivations to corporations - so you cannot ascribe motivations to them EITHER. Hence conflating the trampling of an obvious competitor (more street cars means less automobiles sold) with with suppressing an energy technology is equally bad (worse, I'd say). So it doesn't belong here.  That was not suppression of free energy - so unless you can find a link, you have nothing to say UNLESS you are prepared to ascribe the same motivations in the first case to the second.  The situation with the electric car is just bullshit.  You are talking about the EV-1 from GM.  The conspiracy theorists claim that GM produced an utterly amazing, revolutionary vehicle that they (for some utterly incomprehensible reason) decided had to be suppressed so they snatched back all of the cars from their owners and had them destroyed.  Yeah - sounds like a great story.  The truth is that (like many car companies) they occasionally need to test a new technology with real users.  So the EV-1 was LEASED to a number of members of the public with the strict understanding that GM would want the vehicles back at the end of the lease - because this was just a short production run trial and GM didn't want to have to support these experimental vehicles with dealerships, parts supply warranty and everything else that goes with a full production car.  Lo and behold - when the lease term ended, GM demanded to get their cars back - and the owners protested...demanded to be allowed to keep the cars - to buy them even.  But GM had told them at the outset that this wouldn't happen.  Part of the reason for that is that GM needed to carefully examine each car to see how it had fared through a year of normal wear and tear.  Once they'd done that - they simply disposed of the cars.  No conspiracy, no suppression, nothing.  If they'd wanted to suppress the technology, they wouldn't have given a bunch of left over cars to museums and universities.  But whatever you happen to believe - you have no evidence that this was "suppression" - and electric cars are not "free energy" - so again, even if you believe that they "suppressed" the electric car, then (in your own words) you can't "ascribe motivations to corporations" - so you can't know that this is something they'd also do with free energy.


 * But realistically - why is it that free energy nuts imagine that car companies would object to free energy? I could understand oil companies, coal mining operations and nuclear plant operators wanting to suppress free energy - but CAR COMPANIES?  They have nothing to lose if a magical source of free energy appeared suddenly.  They'd be able to make MUCH bigger cars - they'd change overnight from the evil ogres who are ruining the planet - to a bunch of people who are making people happy with big, comfortable vehicles.  They also make (on average) $10,000 profit on a big SUV and only around $1,000 on a small, efficient sedan.  So they have been pressuring the government to NOT impose hefty tariffs on fuel - or to demand highly efficient engines - because that would kill their cash-cow and force them to make vastly smaller profits.  So why the heck would they even CONSIDER suppressing free energy?   To the contrary - car companies are the one group who would actively promote free energy (if it existed).


 * So to use these two examples to bolster the idea that car companies routinely go around "suppressing technology" is a gross distortion of the truth - it's slandering organisations for deeds they have not committed and probably will never commit. It promotes a fringe theory - and Wikipedia doesn't allow that without MASSIVE proof.  So it doesn't belong in our article.   Hence I'm reverting your change - AGAIN - per WP:FRINGE (you're promoting a fringe theory without adequate evidence),  WP:NOR (you are doing original research by claiming that suppressing thing A means they'll suppress thing B) and WP:SYNTHESIS (fact A does not imply conclusion B).


 * SteveBaker (talk) 14:38, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Omitting an obvious argument is poor form. I agree fully with your analysis of both the trolleys and EVs.  I have no interest in bolstering a fringe theory. I just want to include the stock arguments of those that would bolster such a theory per the subject matter of the article.  An MO sidesteps motivation an MO indicates if something does something once it is likely to do it again.  In this case the MO is the suppress of a technology actually or perceived.  All I want to say is that there are those who say that auto/oil has been attributed to suppress energy saving technologies (trolley and EV) and thus are likely to suppress more energy related technology.  The next sentence in the disputed area claims that there are agencies withholding ET technologies.  I would easily say that both arguments are deep in the absurd.  I would prefer that you say I'm "attributing" WP:FRINGE, WP:NOR, and WP:SYNTHESIS, this still means that I need a citation just like the ET sentence.  I'm not particularly familiar with citing crack pots I tried the ET sentence references but it seems to be dead.  If anyone has the necessary citation, which I'm sure is out there, please add it.--OMCV (talk) 15:48, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It's probably worth including the stuff about the electric car and streetcars, just to note what a bad analogy they are. I mean, everyone agrees that street cars and electric cars actually exist, and as far as I know, no one claims anyone was killed to keep them from market.  If they're not there, it will keep coming up.  The problem is that your typical conspiricist makes no distinction between the motionless electric generator, cold fusion, electric cars, "9/11 domolition" and the fake moon landing.  Oh by the way, I think I put in the original ET reference.  If it's broken, I'll try to find a new one.Prebys (talk) 16:50, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !
In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :) DumZiBoT (talk) 15:22, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "smithadmend" :
 * Solar development cooperative/smith's amended, motion of notice of intent to claim compensation, Solar development cooperative 'Lighting the Way With Creation’s Original Remedy', Corona del Mar, CA 92625 July 19, 1999. Retrieved April 2007. Original location, http://www.geocities.com/Eureka/1905/AMENDEDNOI.doc (ed., there was a notice of intent decision at cpuc.ca.gov) [cf., Enron-Amoco began using Solarex patents to sue major American PV leaders that attempted to evolve new or innovative PV applications or technologies in this nation]
 * Solar development cooperative/smith's amended, motion of notice of intent to claim compensation, Solar development cooperative 'Lighting the Way With Creation’s Original Remedy', Corona del Mar, CA 92625 July 19, 1999.

Hal Putoff
Do he really belong here? There's no claim of any suppression. There's some small allusion in his main article, but it's third hand and very tenuous. I'm tempted to delete unless someone can justify its inclusion.Prebys (talk) 14:56, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I deleted it. Frankly it looked like advertising. TallNapoleon (talk) 21:27, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, sure.... it's an advertisement conspiracy.

Hal Puthoff is probably one of them more difficult figures in the ZPE scene. His history as an Scientologist, at Stanford Research Institute, Secret Government work, involvement in alternative physics, UFO disinformant (the Aviary group) makes him in a really complicated fellow. But I figured, if some of my fellow wikipedians did some in depth research, a good wiki entry might come from it. In the process it might even enlight some of you folks. But I figure this is all too much to ask.... Offcourse there is alternative solution: Deletion.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.36.48.160 (talk) 14:22, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * If there is a reliable source supporting the assertion that his "free energy" activities are being "suppressed" then please cite it. LeContexte (talk) 16:27, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * If the bar were that high, then this article would not exist at all :) On the other hand, in Putoff's case, I can't even find reliable evidence of a claim that his activities are being suppressed, and you have to have some standards.Prebys (talk) 19:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, quite! LeContexte (talk) 16:39, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Free energy movement
Does anybody think that we need both Free energy suppression and Free energy movement? Please explain your reasoning with reference to reliable sources. - Eldereft (cont.) 20:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

There is a Wiki-war going on around the current developments in free energy. There are certain individuals and institutions that are currently involved with the development of free energy devices (or at least that's what they claim). In a way, their efforts are based on the free energy suppression conspiracy theory. What they are doing might be a scam or just crazy fringe science, still there is a huge interest in their work. So huge, that I would call it a movement.

Some of these individuals and institutions are: But there are numerous others.
 * Dr Brian O'Leary, Joel A. Garbon, Alden Bryant, Sterling D. Allan, Terry Sisson and Thomas Valone (The 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization: New Energy Movement)
 * Retired Lieutenant Colonel Thomas E. Bearden
 * Ph.D. Thomas Valone (Integrity Research Institute)
 * Ph.D. Harold E. Puthoff (EarthTech International Inc)
 * Steven M. Greer (The Orion Project)
 * Gordon D. Novel
 * Mark Goldes (Magnetic Power Inc)
 * Dr. Fabrizio Pinto (Interstellar Tech Corp)
 * John Bedini, Peter Lindemann
 * Reed Huish

It is a real challenge to make a fair, summarized Wikipedia entry about this movement. Ruthless sceptics tend to push everything under the conspiracy label, along with strong language about the ridiculous nature of it. From there on, these 'current developments' entries are being marginalized, targeted as being non-notable or not suitable for the 'suppression' article. I agree that there is severe danger of making speculative statements, but I would like to point towards a danger for a very strong sceptic tone as well. This is both wrong, while Wikipedia should be neutral. There are just some subjects were a definite answer can't be given yet.... Free energy, unfortunately is one of them.

I agree that the current developments are based on the conspiracy, but I disagree that the current developments are part of the same story. For example: If there was a purely theoretical debate about the possibility of human flight, I would make that into one Wiki-article. If there were then stories of people that tried to build an aircraft, I would make that into another Wiki-article.

I suggest to make a separate 'movement' article, which makes a fair reference to the conspiracy of Free Energy Suppression, but also gives a fair overview of the movement. (I don't believe I can convince the sceptics though). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.69.196.101 (talk) 13:53, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Is the movement, really notable, of itself? Are there reliable sources documenting the "movement"? Fringe claims are not generally covered in two articles, one on the claims themselves and one on the proponents. Please see WP:FRINGE. LeContexte (talk) 23:43, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Simply argued: The proponents are highly educated people (medical doctors, high-ranking military figures, scientists, ex-astronauts, etc). They made a career switch to a field that claims technologies are possible that would radically change our world. Then again the claims are neglected and ridiculed to such an extend, that their career switch totally ruins their reputation. If such a group of people would give away their career for a fight against windmills (the Don Quichotte ones), that would be humorous, front-page news and notable. Given the serious character of their claims, somehow, people start to question the notability.... To me, it seems like people just don't understand, and in frustration want to cast it away as quickly as possible. But let's take a look at the Wikipedia's general notability guidelines WP:NOTE:
 * – Sufficient coverage:
 * Well, there are numerous books written about the subject, some by the proponents involved, some by sceptics. Then there are the numerous institutions, of which a portion is displayed above, who are regularly broadcast news about developments.
 * - Reliability:
 * We are talking about whether it can be called a movement or not.... not if the claims are nonsense or not. Given the high number of professional institutions and highly educated people involved, I would argue that their claim to being a movement can be regarded as reliable. For instance ex-astronaut Brian O'Leary's 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization (New Energy Movement), claims to be part of this "movement".
 * - Sources:
 * Same story as sufficient coverage.... There are plenty of pro- & contra-sources to refer to.
 * - Independent of the subject:
 * That is the most tricky one. The free energy movement is generally not covered by any mainstream media. For alternative media it is much more difficult to determine their independent status. I must also remind everyone, that nobody is independent to a supposed revolution in the energy-generating technologies.
 * - Presumption of notability:
 * I challenge you to argue for the placement of the subject "Free Energy Movement" under the what Wikipedia is not is not label. Something like: "Wikipedia is not a place were a awareness can be raised for the possibilities for revolutionary energy-generating technologies, that can solve all environmental problems, create world peace through decentralisation of geopolitical power, abolish poverty, abolish 90% of labour, save mankind and heal the planet".


 * Whether the claims are nonsense or not, I would call the movement (the field and its proponents) notable simply for its alleged implications. Again..... It's not part of the suppression story, while many of the current cases haven't claimed to be suppressed themselves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.69.196.101 (talk) 15:18, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Specific "free energy" claims, such as Zero Point Energy or Cold Fusion, do have their own articles, but the "Free Energy Movement", as a generic term, is generally characterized by the axiomatic belief that such technologies (plural) exist and indeed have existed for some time. This only makes sense (to the extent it makes sense at all) in the context of some sort of conspiracy to suppress them, so I don't see any rationale for separating the two. However, perhaps if you can give an example of a "Free Energy Movement" reference that doesn't allege suppression, we can consider it.Good luck!Prebys (talk) 15:32, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with your reasoning. "Free Energy Movement", as a generic term, is generally characterized by the composition of the movement. Whether this movement is a bunch of crackpots that are fighting windmills wouldn't matter for the term. A conspiracy that suppresses is a different story, then people who are trying to develop the things (and don't claim to be suppressed, but merely not finished developing). However, I know the skeptics can't be convinced of given this the appropriate attention. Period. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.36.48.160 (talk) 23:30, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * As I said, if you can produce evidence that there is a "movement" that believes in free energy, but doesn't invoke a conspiracy to explain why such technologies are not readily available (say, on eBay), then you will have a valid argument to create a separate article. So far you have not done that.Prebys (talk) 13:25, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You really can't read can you..... The reason I argue for a separation of the movement article from the suppression article, is not because of evidence the movement is not invoking the conspiracy (they do), but because the suppression article is only focused on the arguments for or against the conspiracy. To my perspective this is too limiting. The movement is based on a conspiracy, but there is more then just pro-/contra-arguments: there are extensive stories of what "believers" are doing, based on their believe in the conspiracy. I argue that these stories can't logically be placed under the conspiracy (suppression) article, but deserve a second article which states clearly the conspiratory basis of the movement, but isn't concerned with the arguments of this conspiracy, but instead tells the general story of the institutions, individuals and actions of the free energy movement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.69.196.101 (talk) 13:10, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I have the strong impression that many of the editors of this article have a strong disbelieve in free energy technology (which is fine). However, their disbelieve doesn’t result in efforts to improve this article in a fair way.... the reason why? Free energy technology seems to them as such nonsense, that the attention it gets strongly annoys them. Their (possible unknowingly) strategy is to limited the article, removing as much as possible, until what is left is such a mess that it can be promoted for deletion. To me, the real problem seems not to be suppression of technology, but ignorance and stubbornness.


 * Conspiracy theories are the only unifying theme for the so-called "Free Energy Movement" as a general concept. The notion of "things that violate the laws of physics as we understand them" is far too vague to define a movement or be the basis for an article. For example, there's absolutely no reason to group Stanley Meyer's water powered car, Tom Bearden's MEG, zero point energy and the zoo of cold fusion claims in one article except that they all have to invoke  conspiracies to explain why the products aren't commercially available.  There is already an article for water-fueled cars, an article all about perpetual motion, an article on cold fusion, zero point energy, etc.  If you can think of other groupings that make logical sense, more power to you. For example, you could arguably group the MEG and Joseph Newman in one article under "things that violate Maxwell's Equations", except that both invoke totally different explanations (or in Bearden's case, about half a dozen different explanations at once).Prebys (talk) 16:07, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

page blanking by LeContexte and Oli Filth
I've just reverted some vandalism to this article.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Free_energy_suppression&diff=269914179&oldid=269494996

Users edit history shows lots of deletions from energy related articles. There may be valid deletions, there are no constructive contributions and the deletions create a generally uninviting environment. This is exactly what "free energy suppression" is about. Perpetual defamation is the main ingredient.

Likewise, the conspiracy theory attributes burning down Tesla's lab as suppression. At the stage where people attack your work 7 days per week it becomes impossible to see the difference.

By this same logic we may discuss why "free energy" is not on the article "free energy" and why the free energy (disambiguation) has replaced the original article.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Free_energy_(disambiguation)&oldid=45554148

The DAB seems elaborate enough to become an article and the subject is confusing enough to have such article. Wikipedia is not a directory, there should be an article explaining what "free energy" is.

84.104.135.86 (talk) 02:45, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm going to have to agree with removal of tesla (see previous discussion leading to same consensus a few sections above). While it sounds like there could be a conspiracy theory involving free energy supression as you describe it, I don't see reliable sources making that connection (i.e., avoiding implication or drawing your own conclusions). WP is distinctly not an open forum...you must have specifically-cited support for your claims. Whether you feel that too is supression is just more uncited conspiracy theory on your part. DMacks (talk) 02:51, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I can read between your lines. Your idea is not to improve the article but all you want is to delete as much as you can from it. You lack all sympathy for the victims AND you feel you own the article. Here is a clear and obvious example of your ownership of this topic:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Free_energy&diff=268497825&oldid=268452396

Calling people "conspiracy theorists" while you are personally trolling the topic. Why is there no decent article about "free energy" on the page about "free energy"? Do you think no one will notice it? I tried to edit Royal Rife a few days ago, all my sources got deleted then the page was locked, the article talk page was locked and my user talk page was filled with warnings while the page was locked. I then tried to add a reference to the cold fusion article the a paper is available on the new energy times website, this then triggered the spam filter! I laughed so hard! You guys think no one will notice your smear?

You are clearly of this kind of users. I'm not interested in debating your deletion fetish, you are much to obvious. Sorry, but the game ends here. You do as you like with the article, delete the whole thing if that is what pleases your wp:own syndrome. I want no further part in it. 84.104.135.86 (talk) 03:28, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I deleted sections which on their face had nothing to do with free energy suppression. If you think these sections were relevant, please explain why. Accusations of "vandalism" and "trolling" for what are reasoned edits, previously discussed on this page, are not particularly constructive. LeContexte (talk) 08:32, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Unusual tone in article -- sounds like a cheap political sales pitch.
I have never heard of the term "free energy supression" until seeing this article, but I have to say that parts of it struck me as odd.

It seems to devote a lot of energy (no pun intended) towards trying to debunk the notion.

It also tries to link conspiracy theories (i.e. that someone is hiding a perpetual motion device, an unlikely scenario) with more reasonable viewpoints (i.e. that energy lobbies spend money to undermine solar, wind, etc., -- technologies which no one denies exist)

Further, much of that debunking relies on non sequiturs.

Some examples:


 * Proponents of this conspiracy theory also claim that certain renewable technologies (such as solar cells and biofuels) and other efficient technologies (as electric vehicles) are being suppressed or weakened by governments and special interest groups.

This type of argument is different from advocacy of psuedo-science. It is also a much more realistic scenario. Why is it lumped together with the other stuff?


 * However, governments have not imprisoned individuals for research

It's naive to think that's the only way a politican can suppress something.


 * The United States government (DOE, NSF, DOD, and others), the European Union and the Japanese have invested resources in developing alternative sources of energy,

It's also possible that a politican can give token support to an issue while giving more attention to a special interest group with the opposite goal.


 * But from an economics perspective, the existence of free goods contradicts the idea that free or very cheap energy would destroy a market economy. 

The claim is not that the economic system itself would be destroyed. From reading the article it seems like the claim is that certain business interests would lose money, and that these business interests are lobbying policymakers. Vide: K Street, Washington DC. In light of this the entire paragraph on a "free energy economy" becomes irrelevant.

Again, I came here casually from another article, and I don't have much interest in spreading conspiracy theories or this one in particular. But if you're going to debunk it, you'd better have something that logically makes sense. If we play devil's advocate and assume that proponents of the idea are correct, this does not make a convincing case against it, and instead comes off as lame for trying. Further, maybe someone more versed in the policy of this site can tell me, is it really Wikipedia's place to be debunking things? -174.21.6.153 (talk) 17:42, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Certainly one problem with the "Analysis" section is that it is largely unsourced, so currently comes across as original research or synthesis. Either sources should be found for the claims, or they should be removed.  Oli Filth(talk 22:56, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 'Remove' seems like the correct course of action to me....the section was pure speculation and original research. Guyonthesubway (talk) 00:12, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * There was talk a while ago (see the 2007 archives) that the article should be split into two; an article dealing with the alleged repression of stuff like wind, solar, etc... and one dealing with the alleged repression of perpetual motion machines. I don't think it was ever implemented. Perhaps we should revisit the idea? Jaimeastorga2000 (talk) 09:45, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You want to try and keep true believers' nonsense out of -two- articles? No thanks.  Guyonthesubway (talk) 10:24, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * But the topics are by their very nature different. PPM suppression is pretty much an attack on the scientific community, whereas alternative energy suppression is much more paranoia of governments and/or corporations. Should we shy away from a possibly better representation because it might represent more work for editors? Jaimeastorga2000 (talk) 00:46, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

anyone can find better source
than book from 1979 cited by noone? 93.86.201.173 (talk) 16:20, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

i removed this from article: ''Alternative and free energy research is typically considered to be pseudo-scientific or unrealistic by the scientific community. Conspiracy theorists allege that this is a deliberate attempt by conspirators to suppress this research. There are various other factors which can prevent funding of some alternative energy development, such as "time and information" and capital costs. '' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.86.201.173 (talk) 16:24, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That may not be a recent cite, but it doesn't mean it's not true. That the third sentence is still viable even without more recent support: it's just a proposed explanation, and the fact that it is proposed and reasonably discussed in that source is still verifiably true (we're not saying that is why, but rather these are some possible reasons why.). I don't think the first two sentences are within the realm of that cite at all (your deletion is overly broad?). Those statements are pretty well supported by...well, much of the rest of this whole article. Numerous claims of zero-point-energy and other "impossible by mainstream-science" are discussed as well as conspiracy theories surrounding them. DMacks (talk) 16:31, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * You see, when i read 'alternative energy' i think of (among other things) solar, wind, etc., and then it sais those are pseudoscientific, which makes me wanna see some really good sources. pretty please? ;O) 93.86.201.173 (talk) 16:34, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

is there an exceptional source for this exceptional claim: alternative ... energy ... pseudoscience... ? anyone? 93.86.201.173 (talk) 11:20, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

or maybe everyone but me agrees that 1979 reference is stronger than, ... for example this and this? 93.86.201.173 (talk) 11:27, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

or maybe someone just missed to place a pseudo-science tag in here? 93.86.201.173 (talk) 11:29, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

so i guess if there is not a good source for the claim, i will remove the claim for the article. 93.86.201.173 (talk) 23:04, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, it's merely your apparent misreading (as you stated above). The article discusses numerous perpetual-motion machines and other pseudoscience, which is apparently being suppressed (according to the conspiracy theorists). That's well documented and explained. Just because some situations of claimed free-energy suppression are not pseudoscience doesn't mean that many others aren't. Maybe you should work on disentangling those two ideas (something that others have already mentioned above). DMacks (talk) 23:11, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * let's try again: statement sais that both free energy research and alternative research is pseudo-scientific. that extraordinary statement requires a very strong source, which btw is not provided, at least not with an inline citation, which btw i asked for. i am challenging the statement, so i expect my challenge be meet with appropriate verification citation. in addition, statement uses present tense (typically considered to be pseudo-scientific or unrealistic by the scientific community) while it relies on the obsolete and not really widely cited source from 1979. 93.86.201.173 (talk) 00:41, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


 * to make things easier, i suggest you remove 'alternative' from that sentence, as then statement will be much more verifiable. 93.86.201.173 (talk) 00:55, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Practical Technologies vs. Pseudoscience
The following needs to be clarified or removed: "Proponents of this conspiracy theory also claim that certain renewable technologies (such as solar cells[9] and biofuels) and other efficient technologies (as electric vehicles) are being suppressed[10] or weakened by governments[11] and special interest groups.[12]"

There is a big difference between solar cells, bio fuels, and electric cars compared to machines that extract "free energy". The former technologies, although not necessarily mature enough to be ready for wide use, are practical and physically possible devices and are NOT considered pseudoscience. There is also evidence that corporations have attempted to suppress such technologies to prevent competition. See the Great American Streetcar Scandal (in which GM and Chevron bought out and shut down trolly systems in many US cities) or the Patent encumbrance of large automotive NiMH batteries (in which Chevron acquired the patent and has prevented many from licensing the technology) as examples. Since the "free energy" technologies are not considered practical with today's engineering and scientific knowledge, the inclusion of practical technologies in this article is not appropriate. At a minimum, the difference between the two should be made more clear.

69.154.119.116 (talk) 07:24, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * One of the distinguishing features of free energy devices as opposed to new efficient or renewable technologies is that free energy devices are not just “not considered practical with today's engineering and scientific knowledge” – they’re considered impossible according to the most fundamental laws of physics. — NRen2k5 (TALK), 10:58, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * If there are sources which state something like "free energy suppression adherents point to instances such as the "great american streetcar scandal" etc etc to make their point", then we can put that in. NJGW (talk) 16:38, 14 July 2009 (UTC)