If free energy were discovered (cold fusion, hydro-combustion, tesla-tech, perpetual motion, what have you) do you believe it would be made available to the peoples of the world? Or do you believe it would be kept from us?
I believe the global power structure depends on our dependence. Free energy would disrupt our dependence on the established 'order'. Those in power will go to any length to maintain our dependence on them for resource, so they can stay in control. Free energy would be locked up in a bunker somewhere, possibly used by the elite few, but fanatically kept hidden from the masses.
The powers that be can't even hide their affairs. How the heck would they be able hide something as monumental as free (actually, extremely cheap) energy?
I am of the belief that we are going into an age when free energy will be available.......... but I don't know if our leaders are quite ready for that yet. I believe that eventually we transition over to a mostly hydrogen based economy. I do believe that some positive steps will be made though in the not too distant future: Energy Now by Mark Taylor
Your point is accurate...... but if a power beyond our wildest comprehension is raising up somebody to fulfill the predictions of Isaiah chapter 45.... then chains will be broken and captives set free...... and free energy is one big way that this could occur.
I don't think we're talking about the same power structure. When was the last time you heard about the 'affairs' of the Rockefellers, Rothschilds, 'Big Oil' Directors, Bill Gates and the like? The power is in the money, debt and owners of industry.
Nothing is free. That in itself is stupid talk. Is there a conspiracy to deny us more economical forms of energy? No. It's a highly competitive and highly lucrative market. Innovations are adopted early. Pipe dreams are routinely subsidised in the hope they will produce breakthroughs. Far from "free energy" being denied us.... a whole load of charlatans are routinely selling it to us.
Have you ever read about Nikola Tesla? Don't you see how his ideas might conflict with those of his primary investor?
The same is true in an oil company. But the market is highly demanding. There is always other investors. Always. If I could not get money for windmill research from an oil company, could i still get money elsewhere? Answer: Yes. Solar? Answer: yes Nuclear? Answer: yes Bio fuels, hydro, gas... hydrogen... and always the answer is yes. Almost none of these examples are as profitable or economic as oil and yet they have all still been widely adopted. Far from more economic solutions being denied us, the exact opposite is occuring, people are jumping on any and every innovation in the hope it will provide a breakthrough.
What do you think of the idea that astonishingly high mileage carborateurs had been invented in the 1970's? http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/ocean-acidification.394228/page-2#post-1064736134 Ocean acidification...
I think the carburetors being used are likely to be the best available for the price. Formula One and the rest of the racing car industries feed domestic car research and my own cars have dramatically improved in standard and efficiency and fuel economy in my life time. Competition in this industry is very high indeed. They spend billions trying to out design each other. The results of that design race are instantly apparent to all. My Morris Ital vs my Lexus. nuff said. It gets 4 times the mileage and has 4 times the engine capacity too. Double the top speed! infinitely more reliable. Tech is advancing and advancing fast. AboveAlpha? Not my idea of a good source for reality based discussion,
The biggest cost in energy is infrastructure, refinement and delivery. Even if you had a source of free energy, there still would be costs involved.
There is and can be no such thing as “free energy”. We already have forms of non-consumable energy generation in wind, water and solar power but they still need equipment and infrastructure to work and even in the fantasy scenario of a truly freely generated energy, it would still require transmission and storage infrastructure. There are clearly individuals and organisations with a vested interest in promoting particular forms of energy generation (though that can apply as much to new as existing forms) and some of them will be willing and able to go to extreme untoward methods to try support their aims. I don’t think any realistically viable alternative would be different to any of the ones we already have available in this though. Coal fought oil, oil fought gas, fossil fuels fought renewables and everybody fought nuclear. Whatever is next will just build on that list.
Nothing is free except GNU/Linux and the bait in the mousetrap. You thought Facebook was free? Look what happened? Gmail, YouTube? Yeah, right.
We already have free energy. No one is being denied access to wind and sunshine. All you have to do is convert it to 'work'.
None of the above would be free energy. They would require some kind of machine to let them work. Perpetual motion is just a big scam. It is impossible, based on the laws of conservation of energy.
Total foolishness. The car companies in the 1970s would have been eager to patent and use those mythical high mileage carboreuters. The company that patented them would make a killing on selling the rights to use the patents alone.
Does anybody here know more about a young guy in Norway apparently inventing a device that can be plugged into a cigarette lighter in a car or truck that can greatly increase the milage that that vehicle gets. I've seen an advertisement for this technology..... but I know little about it so far..... Does anybody here know enough to comment on this technology?
No because it will only help with transporting & growing food which means you will have more babies and then they are going to have to cull harder, because the more babies you have the more products you consume made from oil (there are approx 6000 products made from oil) and whatever oil is left they are keeping for themselves. Besides, the climate change energy wipeout is part of the culling....giving you free energy is the antithesis of the current globalist program
Why would “they” simultaneously want to reduce abortion whilst culling the population? Who are “they” anyway - Lizard people?
free, no, still have the infrastructure but cheaper, yes if it's corporate run, probably not even be cheaper