Debunked: Quantum Energy Generator (QEG), 10kw out for 1kw in.

Graham2001

Active Member
Great video! There are a lot of times I would like to do something this detailed instead of invoking the simple Irish response: "that's fooking shyte".

Back in the 1990's Australia's main electronic hobby magazine 'Silicon Chip' did a similar thing with a box of flashing lights that was supposed to cure cancer, it turned out to be a very simple circuit (Which they published.) fitted with about $5 worth of electronics, the retailers were asking for $100.
 

Hama Neggs

Senior Member.
Just found a video on YouTube taking down another home-built 'free energy' machine powered by 'quantum', complete with a discussion of just what mistakes the designer is making (Warning, this is Australian so the Bull#&%@! bomb is dropped a few times, including in the title.)


Couldn't watch that. They guy is just too frantic.
 

Maverick

New Member
What if these people aren't tuning the generator to run at its resonant frequency? Could this be the reason that it doesn't produce more power than what is being put in?
 

Svartbjørn

Senior Member.
What if these people aren't tuning the generator to run at its resonant frequency? Could this be the reason that it doesn't produce more power than what is being put in?

No.. the only way you can PROVE that a system like this is putting out more energy than its getting IN, would be to start the system with the power supply, and then REMOVE the power supply. At that point, the system (since its creating its own energy) should continue to run by itself... but it wont, because it cant once the capacitors discharge. It has nothing to do with quantum vacuums or anything of that nature.

QVs are a great idea, but the systems required to run something like that cant be built in your back yard. The guys that came up with the idea that they even exist havent been able to build the facilities needed to test them. There's no way you could buy off the shelf junk and slap it together in your back yard.

Dont misunderstand, Id love to see a system that would allow people to get off the dependence of fossil fuels, but until crackpots quit trying to pass off quackery and half baked scientific ideas as reality, the REAL stuff is going to be seen in the same light.
 
Last edited:

Maverick

New Member
No.. the only way you can PROVE that a system like this is putting out more energy than its getting IN, would be to start the system with the power supply, and then REMOVE the power supply. At that point, the system (since its creating its own energy) should continue to run by itself... but it wont, because it cant once the capacitors discharge. It has nothing to do with quantum vacuums or anything of that nature.

QVs are a great idea, but the systems required to run something like that cant be built in your back yard. The guys that came up with the idea that they even exist havent been able to build the facilities needed to test them. There's no way you could buy off the shelf junk and slap it together in your back yard.

Dont misunderstand, Id love to see a system that would allow people to get off the dependence of fossil fuels, but until crackpots quit trying to pass off quackery and half baked scientific ideas as reality, the REAL stuff is going to be seen in the same light.


That didnt answer my question. This device gets power from electromagnetic frequencies that run through the atmosphere (i.e.: gamma, xray ect.). If you've ever followed Tesla's actual work or read his patents you would know that he succeeded in making a device that ran off of this energy. Now I'm not saying this is that device, but the operation of it generating power from these frequencies is totally possible. To the common eye, a machine that runs off of this "invisible energy," if you will, seems like it is producing more energy out than what's being put in.

I think the key to this device is tuning it to the machine's natural electrical resonant frequency. At this frequency, the amplitude of the device spikes dramatically upward and hence the electromotive forces would also spike because with more amplitude means more magnetic flux. If something is acting on that flux to produce more power, it becomes a generator.

Thoughts?
 

Spectrar Ghost

Senior Member.
That you didn't actually watch the debunking video? Because you don't need to make up physics to explain the device. It's perfectly well able to do what was claimed without exotic power sources.

You're aware of course, being conversant with atmospheric EM propogation as you are, that x-rays and gamma rays don't travel particularly well in the atmosphere due to absorption?
 

Maverick

New Member
That you didn't actually watch the debunking video? Because you don't need to make up physics to explain the device. It's perfectly well able to do what was claimed without exotic power sources.

You're aware of course, being conversant with atmospheric EM propagation as you are, that x-rays and gamma rays don't travel particularly well in the atmosphere due to absorption?


Whether or not they travel well or not, they are still present. With those high energy waves, even a minimal amount of them would be more than enough to power something like this.

You still aren't getting this. We all know that a material has a resonant frequency at which it vibrates. Great, right? Well what if you went further and found the frequency at which that material moves electrons across its surface? Or even if you found the frequency at which that material creates magnetic flux. Is this not electricity as we know it? It is a theory, I know, but that isn't all that hard to prove. It's just hard to prove where the frequencies are coming from, which is why everyone thinks Tesla was a mad scientist. This was his life's work: electrical resonance.
 
Last edited:

Spectrar Ghost

Senior Member.
I'm saying your theory is irrelevant to the operation of the device in the above video, which could produce the observed results without such handwaving. The math is all in the video, if you want to look.
 

Spectrar Ghost

Senior Member.
Thick enough. If the theory isn't that hard to prove, I personally would be doing it and making a name for myself.

But vibrational resonance and electrical resonance are two different phenomena, and even tesla understood that if you want to send power over long distances you use radio waves, because the attenuation is less than for high energy radiation. We'll leave aside the effects of such radiation on humans, which would almost certainly be damaging in order to match the power in an AA battery.
 

Maverick

New Member
Thick enough. If the theory isn't that hard to prove, I personally would be doing it and making a name for myself.

But vibrational resonance and electrical resonance are two different phenomena, and even tesla understood that if you want to send power over long distances you use radio waves, because the attenuation is less than for high energy radiation. We'll leave aside the effects of such radiation on humans, which would almost certainly be damaging in order to match the power in an AA battery.


I understand they are two different phenomena but all frequencies are electromagnetic in nature. You don't have to produce any more gamma or xrays than what is already in the atmosphere, you just have to collect them.

The theory is hard to prove because it is difficult to make a circuit that can tune to those extremely high frequencies. Although difficult, it is not impossible.
 

Spectrar Ghost

Senior Member.
Not all frequencies are electromagnetic. Sound is not electromagnetism, nor is it created by electromagnetism. Yet it has a frequency.

If there was enough density of high energy photons in the lower atmosphere to do real work, we would all be dead of radiation poisioning. It would take on the order of 10^19 low energy x-rays to equal the power in a single AA cell. Fewer higher energy photons, of course, but the potential radiation risk increases more than linearly with the energy per photon, so it would be more dangerous the higher the average energy.

The reason we aren't already harvesting the gamma and x-ray radiation is that it would be a paltry amount of power even if it did work.
 

Maverick

New Member
I guess I worded that wrong. I meant to say all frequencies operate in the electromagnetic spectrum and can be created with an electric circuit. Sorry about that.

So what if it's not operating on known frequencies? I read a few articles about a "zero point energy." These articles were trying to prove what Tesla was trying to tap into for power applications. They basically stated that all things in the universe spin in this "spiral shape." We see it when water goes down a drain or when leaves spin from the wind or in the solar system and galaxies all around us. All these articles stated was that these frequencies also spin in this highly efficient pattern and that if it can be tapped into, you have a basically unlimited source of energy.
 

Spectrar Ghost

Senior Member.
Zero point energy is not what popular imagination says it is. It cannot be mined. Even a perfect vacuum has pairs of virtual particles popping in and out existence all the time. They constitute energy, ephemeral as they are. So a perfect vacuum has what amounts to a very low level of static even when there is no usable energy. This is the zero point energy. It is the energy left over even after all energy possible to extract has been extracted.

It would be useful if you stuck to a single conceptual power source instead of leaping from one to another. It just seems like grasping at straws otherwise.
 

Maverick

New Member
Zero point energy is not what popular imagination says it is. It cannot be mined. Even a perfect vacuum has pairs of virtual particles popping in and out existence all the time. They constitute energy, ephemeral as they are. So a perfect vacuum has what amounts to a very low level of static even when there is no usable energy. This is the zero point energy. It is the energy left over even after all energy possible to extract has been extracted.

It would be useful if you stuck to a single conceptual power source instead of leaping from one to another. It just seems like grasping at straws otherwise.

Ok so what if the spirals aren't zero point energy but are something completely different?
 

Spectrar Ghost

Senior Member.
Then it becomes even more clear you're spitballing, and don't really understand what you're talking about. You don't get to just redefine your terms on the fly when you realize you're wrong.

You're grasping at straws here. If you want to find a new physics you need to understand the old physics first. That takes more effort than reading articles on ZPE. It takes math, and lots of it. I never finished my physics degree, partially, but not entirely, because I couldn't handle the math.
 

NoParty

Senior Member.
Whether or not they travel well or not, they are still present. With those high energy waves, even a minimal amount of them would be more than enough to power something like this.

You still aren't getting this. We all know that a material has a resonant frequency at which it vibrates. Great, right? Well what if you went further and found the frequency at which that material moves electrons across its surface? Or even if you found the frequency at which that material creates magnetic flux. Is this not electricity as we know it? It is a theory, I know, but that isn't all that hard to prove. It's just hard to prove where the frequencies are coming from, which is why everyone thinks Tesla was a mad scientist. This was his life's work: electrical resonance.
No, everyone doesn't think Tesla was a mad scientist.

Most people familiar with his work recognize that he was a great mind, but that he also probably did not
have physics-defying super-secret inventions that will be awesome...if we only somehow re-discover them.

Doesn't it strike you as odd that the finest scientists--in this most advanced age--can't come up
with a device that mines all this supposedly easily available free energy floating all around us?
Untold riches would go to whoever could do so, never mind fabulous esteem within the scientific community.

And yet guys on YouTube claim that they know the true secrets, and, damn it, if they could ever just get their
damned magic device "tuned," :confused: they'd be able to show everyone. Now, does that seem believable to you?


p.s. Even this interesting "electromagnetic harvester"
http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/...r-that-gathers-free-electricity-from-thin-air
is really just converting energy from nearby man-made devices...not collecting
energy "from the Universe" as many YouTubers seem to think is a pretty easy trick :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:

Maverick

New Member
Then it becomes even more clear you're spitballing, and don't really understand what you're talking about. You don't get to just redefine your terms on the fly when you realize you're wrong.

You're grasping at straws here. If you want to find a new physics you need to understand the old physics first. That takes more effort than reading articles on ZPE. It takes math, and lots of it. I never finished my physics degree, partially, but not entirely, because I couldn't handle the math.


I'm not "spitballing". This is a theory and you are striking it down because I coined the wrong term (zero point energy). Honestly, why do you have to be such a "Debbie Downer"? I'm just trying to theorize what could possibly make a machine like this work.

No one likes Math. Math sucks.
 
Last edited:

Spectrar Ghost

Senior Member.
No one likes Math. Math sucks.

Then you're not doing physics. You're daydreaming. Without a mathematical underpinning to your ideas, they are not a theory. They are unfounded speculation. Feel free to continue if you want, but don't act surprised when people who have invested their lives in understanding how the universe really works don't give you the time of day. *shrug*

Edit: I can't include myself in that group, to be clear.
 

Whitebeard

Senior Member.
Bottom line is Free Energy is like cold fusion and all the other great pipe dreams of science. Stuff that could be possible at some point in the future given our ever increasing understanding of quantum physics, but at the moment is either theoretically or practically impossible. And this isn't mainstream science 'covering up' or ignoring the idea, it's mainstream science doing real science and saying 'that wont work' or 'that is not yet practical'. Believe me there is fame, fortune and Nobel prizes galore awaiting the scientist who does crack free energy, but the very fact that the idea isn't being pursued with any great vigour by the scientific community shows that, at the moment at least, such goals are unobtainable and not worth chasing outside the world of the advanced theoretical side of science. And the theoretical side of physics is nothing but a lot of very very hard sums.
 
Last edited:

Hevach

Senior Member.
No one likes Math. Math sucks.
That's your answer, that's why people are being debbie downers. You're trying to engage in an almost purely mathematical field of discussion with this as your mathematical credentials.

And you are spitballing, no matter how you try to cut it, even without using the wrong terms. You started your claim with the words, "Well what if..." without regards to what the math or science says about what comes next, because math is hard.

Most people familiar with his work recognize that he was a great mind, but that he also probably did not
have physics-defying super-secret inventions that will be awesome...if we only somehow re-discover them.
Many will also brand him with the cardinal sin of science: He lied about results. Sometimes in fantastically childish ways, like claiming he destroyed his lab and damaged the neighboring building and repaired it all himself before anyone found out but the machine that did it only works when he's alone in his lab at night.

Whenever dealing with some supposed revolutionary lost Tesla invention, it's important to remember that.
 

Maverick

New Member
I never finished my physics degree, partially, but not entirely, because I couldn't handle the math.

Edit: I can't include myself in that group, to be clear.

Um... wait a minute here. You are trying to call me out with not doing math but you can't handle it either? [...]
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Santa'sSickRibs

Senior Member
You find this sort of thing in every discipline: many people don't want to spend a decade of their life studying the subject in universities, so they turn their intelligent minds to it, and read a little and think a little, and quickly become convinced they know better than every trained academic researcher. You see this in economics, climate science, sociology, psychology, and, as here, in physics.

Once a upon a time, when you could be a great intellectual by dint of a sharp mind alone, such people would have wound up in history books; but today, when there are many sharp minds and libraries full of technical literature for every field and sub-field, you can't expect to be in the forefront of anything without decades of serious study and research. I've spoken to so many 'coffee economists' (I always seem to come across them when they're drinking coffee) who wouldn't be able to read the 'empirical methods' (usually, math) section of a well-written, simple paper, but who believe they have valuable insights into the 'advantages' of the gold standard; I'm sure the same happens for anyone engaged in serious academic study.

The media and 'pop intellectuals' contribute to this by boiling everything down to simple, easily accessible articles and books. In and of itself this is great; but when highly intelligent neophytes read them, they often come away thinking they understand as much as an active PhD in the field, and are entirely unaware that they have no inkling of what serious study of the field is like.

A shortcut to nowhere can be quite tempting.
 
Last edited:

Maverick

New Member
That's your answer, that's why people are being debbie downers. You're trying to engage in an almost purely mathematical field of discussion with this as your mathematical credentials.

And you are spitballing, no matter how you try to cut it, even without using the wrong terms. You started your claim with the words, "Well what if..." without regards to what the math or science says about what comes next, because math is hard.


Sorry for trying to put some ideas out there? Look I read stuff and present the ideas. Sorry I can't post complex mathematical formulas online.
 

Spectrar Ghost

Senior Member.
Um... wait a minute here. You are trying to call me out with not doing math but you can't handle it either? What the f*ck is that crap?

I'm trusting in those that can. I trust in the self-correcting nature science to lead us to the answers you are groping about for, if they exist. I'm also conceptually familiar enough with basic concepts to make reasonable judgments about what makes sense. And what you've proposed so far doesn't pass muster. I doubt it would be accepted by the scientific community at large, and ultimately the burden of proof is on you to show it should be.
 

Santa'sSickRibs

Senior Member
If this machine can actually work, why doesn't its inventor write a paper documenting it and send it for peer review and publication in a physics journal?
 

Henk001

Senior Member.
This device gets power from electromagnetic frequencies that run through the atmosphere (i.e.: gamma, xray ect.). If you've ever followed Tesla's actual work or read his patents you would know that he succeeded in making a device that ran off of this energy.
Could you please give me a reliable source for this assertion?
The idea of collecting energy from electromagnetic radiation through resonance seems a bit odd to me because you can resonate with only one frequency at a time. Of course we know how to pick up electromagnetic radiation. You use a tuned circuit. Using capacitors and coils the circuit resonates with a frequency inversely proportional to the square root of the self-induction and the capacity.
 
Last edited:

Henk001

Senior Member.
I guess I worded that wrong. I meant to say all frequencies operate in the electromagnetic spectrum and can be created with an electric circuit. Sorry about that.

So what if it's not operating on known frequencies? I read a few articles about a "zero point energy." These articles were trying to prove what Tesla was trying to tap into for power applications. They basically stated that all things in the universe spin in this "spiral shape." We see it when water goes down a drain or when leaves spin from the wind or in the solar system and galaxies all around us. All these articles stated was that these frequencies also spin in this highly efficient pattern and that if it can be tapped into, you have a basically unlimited source of energy.
1. What do you mean by unknown frequencies?
2. Spiral spinning mostly (if not all the time) originates from the combination of angular momentum and a source or sink of energy. The solar system is a bad example, becuase the planets are not spiraling at all. Stuff (stars etc.) in a spiral galaxy is not spiraling either. They rotate in Keplerian orbits around the centre. In doing that, they cross a spiral shaped standing wave pattern (a bit like sound waves) causing condensations and dilutions of matter.
3. Frequencies are not entities that can spin or spiral in any way. A frequency is a number. It tells you how many times something occurs in a given time. Electomagnetic and other waves going up and down or around or something like that f times per second, have a frequency of f Hertz.
 

Henk001

Senior Member.
I think the key to this device is tuning it to the machine's natural electrical resonant frequency. At this frequency, the amplitude of the device spikes dramatically upward and hence the electromotive forces would also spike because with more amplitude means more magnetic flux. If something is acting on that flux to produce more power, it becomes a generator.

Thoughts?
What does this mean? A machine has a resonant frequency equal to 1/2pi*sqrt(L*C). I don't see what is natural about that or how a machine can be tuned to its own resonance frequency. When you talk about amplitude you need to specify what this amplitude is about. The amplitude of the alternating current? The amplitude of a standing wave?
What do you mean by something acting upon a magnetic flux? A generator works because an external force acts upon a conductor, moving it in a magnetic field in such a way that the Lorentz force causes the electric charges to move. The technical development of this principle leads to coils moving in a magnetic field and you can associate the induction voltage with the rate of change of the loop flux. Nothing can act upon that flux, again because the flux is just a number, not an entity.
 

MikeC

Closed Account
If this machine can actually work, why doesn't its inventor write a paper documenting it and send it for peer review and publication in a physics journal?

Or even just run some open and above-board public demo's where all questions are answered, all equipment is able to be inspectd, and anyone can go away and copy it!
 

Efftup

Senior Member.
Like I have said before, even supposing this technology WAS real and WOULD work if they could tune it. If they haven't tuned it yet and never have, IT DOESN'T WORK. SO don;t make youtube videos saying how you have broken the old paradigms of physics etc until you have actually done something.

Once it does work, it would be easy to prove for not too much money.
Assuming you already have a computer, you can just buy an additional 6TB hard drive for £200 these days, and even if you spent an additional £500 on the machine, it wouldn't be THAT ridiculous.
You can buy a decent webcam for under a tenner, and you can download free software called ispy.. to record continuously (saving in 15 min chunks) onto the 6TB hard drive which would be enough for MONTHS of video. If you pay AU$7.95 a month for a subscription, you can also host the feed from your cameras to a website (This one apparently costs Mick no more than US$200 a year ) so people can just log in and see this miracle machine doing work and powering itself with no external power source. You can invite other scientists round to examine it to make sure you haven't got a car battery or diesel generator hooked up somewhere and have them examine it on camera too.

The fact that so far, no one has EVER demoed ANYTHING actually working, and at least one of the groups claiing to have built such QEGs, give you basic plans cheap and then trys and sting you for several hundred dollars for a Skype consultation when yours inevitably doesn't work is a bit fishy. Even worse when you have to have had several of these "consultations" before you are then allowed to voluntarily donate a minimum of £200,000 to have a demo of their working machine. (see post #165 of THIS thread. )
 

tadaaa

Senior Member
Is it not simply a case of Hitchin's Razor

What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence

Or more colloquially put as, "Take a dump or get off the toilet"

Simply show it working - not rocket science is it

(Or maybe it is!!!!!)
 
Last edited:

David Coulter

Senior Member.
I understand they are two different phenomena but all frequencies are electromagnetic in nature. You don't have to produce any more gamma or xrays than what is already in the atmosphere, you just have to collect them.

The theory is hard to prove because it is difficult to make a circuit that can tune to those extremely high frequencies. Although difficult, it is not impossible.

There are devices that do this and are very common: they are called gamma ray spectrometers. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamma_ray_spectrometer

The basic principle is that high energy particles (gamma rays/X-rays) interact with certain material (typically a sodium iodide crystal) and produce small flashes of light. These are measured by a photomultiplier to create a voltage that is measured. So there you go - electricity from cosmic rays! The devices cost tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars and use more energy to run than they generate from the photomultipliers.

You can much more easily harness cosmic energy with a solar cell for a few dollars. Just because gamma/X rays are energetic doesn't mean you can use that energy easily. The amount of total energy in cosmic radiation is minute in comparison with the visible-infrared energy from the sun. If the "device" was simply connected to a small solar cell and a rechargeable battery if would run for months or years (until the battery reached its cycle lifespan).
 
Last edited:

David Coulter

Senior Member.
I should have said, "The amount of total energy in cosmic radiation is minute at the Earth's surface in comparison with the visible-infrared energy from the sun."
 

Henk001

Senior Member.
I should have said, "The amount of total energy in cosmic radiation is minute at the Earth's surface in comparison with the visible-infrared energy from the sun."
The cosmic radiation that the Earth recieves consists mainly of protons (89 %). Almost all of these and EM-radiation from UV-C up to gamma is absorbed in the ionosphere (and the ozone-layer); what we detect on sealevel is mostly secondary particles that originate from collissions with atmospheric molecules. The amount of gamma- and X-ray-radiation is effectively nil.
 

Rongram

New Member
Hi Everybody

Stumbled onto this forum and found this post quite interesting.

First I would like to say as seen in the reply's, that it always amaze me how short sighted some people are and then just bash everything as they cannot comprehend what they see.

The theory's that are out there are all possible.

Now before a person bash everything as scams, go look at the world political control system and the people behind them. Energy corporations do not want any form of free energy out to the general public. Why? They will be out of business.

Nikolai Tesla's inventions was smothered from inception by the people in power. In the early Days power distribution was massive business. ( Imagine Today if all of a sudden all homes need power cables installed.. Let's leave that one there)

Hendry Ford was one of the people that acquired most if not all Tesla's inventions. They simply locked it away.

In the last 100 Years all over the world if somebody came up and actually do the THING called EFFICIENT ENERGY. They were all of a sudden quiet and started living like kings.

In Today's World it cannot be kept under the blankets. Information spread too fast.

Now the big question again where are Tesla's inventions or what are left of them. This include his Patents.

Today we look at another Guy. Elon Musk. Do you know this Guy??? One of his company's is The Tesla company. He somehow procured Tesla's inventions.

Question now is. Why do he not flood the market with free energy. Answer is: He is funded by NASA and ENERGY corporations as well as US Government.

The Tesla BATTERY that Elon Musk call ( THE POWER WALL) combined with Solar is hitting the market soon. This is a great free energy source,, but at one huge investment to Consumers. This will still give them ongoing business as panels will have to be replaced and systems needs to be maintained.

Back to the original post: You can call them what ever you like, fuel less energy, self contained energy, self drive generator or QEG no matter what you want to call them.. Simple fact is the concept are working.

We have already some in the field. We are busy sorting some minor details and for sure will continually better the product.

The range are from 5,5kw single Phase 230vac. and 15kw to 500kw 3 Phase 400vac.

Again call it what you like, fact is We do not use external power source to drive the plants.

Correction; we do use a battery to start the system. Once it reach resonance the system is self supported.

Must mention: We do have some issues with the 15kw, but this will be sorted in the next Month or so. We first thought to not make the 15kw, but it will be a very popular size.

The first attempt the input was 60% against output. This would have made the machines expensive. Later on the input went down to 25%. Well I leave you guys at that. The guys even reduced that.


OK, NOW YOU CAN BASH ME TOO.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
We have already some in the field. We are busy sorting some minor details and for sure will continually better the product.

The range are from 5,5kw single Phase 230vac. and 15kw to 500kw 3 Phase 400vac.

Again call it what you like, fact is We do not use external power source to drive the plants.

Correction; we do use a battery to start the system. Once it reach resonance the system is self supported.

Prove it.
 

Trailblazer

Moderator
Staff member
The first attempt the input was 60% against output. This would have made the machines expensive.

This line alone is clearly nonsense.

If the input was "60% against output", then how would the machines be expensive? You would be getting 100/60 = 1.67 times as much energy out as you were putting in. That in itself would be a miracle and make you rich and famous, if it were true.

If they work, I assume your power bills are now zero?


Today we look at another Guy. Elon Musk. Do you know this Guy??? One of his company's is The Tesla company. He somehow procured Tesla's inventions.

Question now is. Why do he not flood the market with free energy. Answer is: He is funded by NASA and ENERGY corporations as well as US Government.

Any evidence of this? Musk called his electric car company Tesla Motors, because the cars use an AC motor based on Tesla's design. It's a motor, which converts electricity into motion, with less than 100% efficiency. That's all. Musk certainly doesn't claim to have the secret of free energy.

Furthermore:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elon_Musk#Tesla_Motors
 

David Coulter

Senior Member.
Now before a person bash everything as scams, go look at the world political control system and the people behind them.

I personally don't think that a lot of people in free energy schemes are intentional frauds, I think they just don't understand (or perhaps believe) the physics of AC current or Conservation of Energy. The former is fairly complicated and requires a working knowledge of the difference between a projection to the real axis vs the real-imaginary plane. The latter is, like it or not, a Law of this Universe. I think the approach many of the free energy believers tends to be more "religious" than scientific in nature.

Now the big question again where are Tesla's inventions or what are left of them. This include his Patents.

They didn't "go" anywhere: here is a list of Tesla's patents with links to the patents themselves.
 

Trailblazer

Moderator
Staff member
I personally don't think that a lot of people in free energy schemes are intentional frauds, I think they just don't understand (or perhaps believe) the physics of AC current or Conservation of Energy. The former is fairly complicated and requires a working knowledge of the difference between a projection to the real axis vs the real-imaginary plane. The latter is, like it or not, a Law of this Universe. I think the approach many of the free energy believers tends to be more "religious" than scientific in nature.

Yes, I think a lot of them have the attitude that "We can go from 75% efficient to 90% efficient - we just need to get the same efficiency improvement again and we'll be over unity!"

Sadly it doesn't work like that.
 

Auldy

Senior Member.
Hendry Ford was one of the people that acquired most if not all Tesla's inventions. They simply locked it away.

.

Nikola Tesla lived to the age of 86 between July 1856 and January 1943 and Henry Ford lived till 83 between July 1863 and April 1947. He only survived Tesla by a handful of years. Now assuming patents become available after the inventor passes away (they don't, by the way, but thats what I assuming you are inferring), Henry Ford has suffered several health complications by 1943 including "several cardiovascular events (variously cited as heart attack or stroke) and was mentally inconsistent, suspicious, and generally no longer fit for such immense responsibilities". And for the last 20 years of his life he had been President in title only, having little influence on the board or day to day decisions on running his company. When, where and how did he manage to acquire most, if not all, of Tesla's inventions?
 
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
Mick West Debunked: First object teleported to Earth's orbit [Quantum Communication] Science and Pseudoscience 11
Mythic Suns [Debunked] Viral internet meme indirectly claiming that Greenland has already fully melted. Science and Pseudoscience 6
T AiG Debunked: Fossils Fail to Find Major Transition From Dinosaurs to Birds Science and Pseudoscience 10
Rory Debunked: UK undertaker's claim that Covid vaccine is responsible for spike in deaths Coronavirus COVID-19 7
Marc Powell Debunked: 9/11 truth experts are knowledgeable professionals and their judgments are to be trusted 9/11 195
Marc Powell Debunked: Explosions preparatory to demolition of the WTC North Tower are visible as Flight 175 crashes into the South Tower 9/11 7
Mick West Debunked: Pfizer Developing a Twice-Per-Day COVID Pill, Taken Alongside Vaccines Coronavirus COVID-19 0
Marc Powell Debunked: Demolition “squib” is visible at top of WTC North Tower before Flight 11 crash 9/11 67
Marc Powell Debunked: Construction worker Philip Morelli experienced an explosion in the sub-basement of the North Tower 9/11 0
Marc Powell Debunked: ABC News correspondent George Stephanopoulos reported an explosion in the subway 9/11 1
Marc Powell Debunked: Debris from twin towers was projected upward by explosives 9/11 13
Marc Powell Debunked: Government officials revealed having foreknowledge of Building 7’s collapse 9/11 58
Marc Powell Debunked: NIST computer simulation of Building 7 collapse is inaccurate 9/11 22
Marc Powell Debunked: FEMA reported finding evidence that steel had melted. 9/11 47
Marc Powell Debunked: VP Dick Cheney ordered a standdown of jet fighters on 9/11 9/11 16
Oystein Debunked: Claim that Bobby McIlvaine's injuries ("lacerations") are best explained as result of glass shards and debris from bombs 9/11 22
Marc Powell Debunked: World Trade Center should not have collapsed due to 9/11 fires 9/11 3
Marc Powell Debunked: Firefighter reports of secondary explosions 9/11 3
Marc Powell Debunked: Steel was hurled hundreds of feet by explosives 9/11 4
Marc Powell Debunked: Demolition Explosion Before Collapse of South Tower 9/11 8
Marc Powell Debunked: Explosion in South Tower Lobby 9/11 7
Marc Powell Debunked: Mysterious Explosion Before the Flight 11 Crash 9/11 48
J.d.K Debunked: Marx: "The classes and the races too weak to master the new conditions must give way... They must perish in the revolutionary Holocaust" Quotes Debunked 0
dimebag2 Poll : Which DOD Navy video do you consider debunked ? UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 74
Mick West Debunked: Diving Triangle UFO Photos from Reddit [Fake] UFOs and Aliens 37
Theferäl [Debunked] Object Seen From Airplane Above Canberra: 04 Apr 2012 Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 5
TEEJ Debunked: Claim that Joe Biden's hand passes through microphone during White House press gaggle, 16th March 2021 Election 2020 9
bird_up Debunked: "Interdimensional being" caught on CCTV in Neza, Mexico Ghosts, Monsters, and the Paranormal 6
M Debunked: Atmospheric pressure on Mars is 9 PSI, not 0.09 PSI as claimed by NASA Science and Pseudoscience 76
Patrick Gonzalez Debunked: missing cable on Perseverance landing footage proves it is fake. General Discussion 3
TEEJ Debunked: Biden's Oval Office "Coming Apart at the Seams" [It's a Door] Election 2020 19
derrick06 Debunked: UFO over California Highway (TMZ) UFOs and Aliens 1
P Debunked: 7 Alleged photos of aliens UFOs and Aliens 9
Mick West Debunked: Biden signing "Blank" Executive Orders Election 2020 5
Mick West Debunked: Biden in "Fake" Oval Office Election 2020 27
P Debunked: UN hidden camera: the first UFO contact happened [Deep Fake] UFOs and Aliens 3
Mick West Debunked: 94% of Fulton County Ballots Manually Adjudicated [It's a Process all Batches go Through] Election 2020 0
Mick West Debunked: "Missile Strike" caused Nashville Explosion General Discussion 3
Mick West Debunked: Nashville Explosion was "Across the Street" from the RV General Discussion 0
Mick West Debunked: "Error rate of 68.5% Allowable is .0008%" [Neither is True] Election 2020 4
Mick West Debunked: Claim that the Electoral College Count On Jan 6 will Change the Election Election 2020 136
Rory Debunked: Einstein wrote "blind belief in authority is the greatest enemy of truth" Quotes Debunked 12
Mick West Debunked: Navid Keshavarz-Nia's Claims of "A Sudden Rise in Slope" as Election Fraud Evidence Election 2020 5
Mick West Debunked: Trump's Claim of "1,126,940 votes created out of thin air" in PA Election 2020 9
Mick West Debunked: Crowder's "Fraud Week" Title Graphic (and Why it Matters) Election 2020 1
JFDee Debunked: Democratic senators complained about 'vote switching' by Dominion voting machines in 2019 Election 2020 2
Mendel Debunked: The Democrats are trying to take away freedom of religion Election 2020 6
H Debunked: Dr. Shiva's Scatterplot Analysis of Michigan Precincts Election 2020 43
Mick West Debunked: Suspicious "Biden Only" Ballots in Georgia Election 2020 3
Mick West Debunked: "Nancy Pelosi's long time Chief of Staff is a key executive at Dominion Voting" Election 2020 0
Related Articles


















































Related Articles

Top