PESWiki.com -- Pure Energy Systems Wiki:  Finding and facilitating breakthrough clean energy technologies.







    

PowerPedia:Suppression of Energy Technology

From PESWiki

Jump to: navigation, search

Suppression of energy technology occurs when an individual or group which is more powerful than the developer(s) or inventor(s) tries to directly or indirectly censor, persecute or otherwise oppress the innovations and technology, rather than engage with and constructively develop or accommodate the other technology.

Contents

Introduction

Energy suppression is a theory, reportedly a conspiracy, claiming that certain special interest have suppressed technologies. The conspiracy theory claims that groups are suppressing, or have suppressed in the past, technologies that would or could provide energy at reduced costs, reduced pollution output, or would or could reduce the energy consumption of various devices. Groups most often implicated in such activity are the oil industry, petroleum national governments and, additionally, automakers. The most common perceived motive is preservation of the economic status quo and sustained increase of fuel prices. The theory is often supported by certain environmentalists because of the expected low to nil pollution produced under such theoretical technologies. Some libertarians and anarchists support the theory based upon the idea that dependence upon expensive energy is perpetuated by governments in order to control the populace by means of hydraulic despotism.

Developer(s) (or inventor(s)) perceived as a threat can be exposed to actions that may be taken to prevent continuing innovation or penalise researchers. Government or industry may act in this way. Suppressed inventions are taken into the realm of business, rather than strict politics. Nikola Tesla has been the object of several conspiracy theories of energy suppression, with claims relating to revolutionary energy generation and distribution technologies which may or may not have been utilised by 'HAARP', an American military-funded research programme. Similarly, there are claims that Wilhelm Reich's 'orgone energy' was suppressed by the establishment.

Suppression theories

Supporters of the free energy suppression theory claim that the technology exists today but is being suppressed. The principal belief is that electric companies, gas heating companies and oil companies would lose half or more of their profits with free energy available. Therefore, these companies then donate millions of dollars to governments (bribing them) to make sure that free energy devices stay out of the public market. Tactics and means of suppression include buying the patent of the free energy device from the inventor or his family, suing the inventor or patent holder and even murdering the inventor in some cases. Based on the principles of capitalism, free energy cannot be allowed. The traditional economic system contains three aspects: capital, goods and services.

Within the aspects of capital are three subcomponents:

  • currency,
  • credit, and
  • natural capital.

Natural capital comprises raw material and energy. This differs considerably from the orthodox definition of capital in economics. Capital is theoretically a fully-controlled component of general economics. Currently, all components are fully monitored and managed. Introducing free energy into the economic equation would have the same economic effect as giving everyone access to the natural capital, which would destroy or severely undermine the entire basis of the capitalist economic system because control over currency and credit would be reduced. According to many free energy collusion theorists, this is why free energy must be (and is) suppressed. The internal logic of this conspiracy collusion theory resembles that of the General Motors streetcar conspiracy (which, however, is more substantiated).

Economically speaking, it is easy to see what incentive there might be in hiding a free-energy device, such as to use it in a secretive environment and selling electricity to the "grid" at market prices. One might go so far as to say that a corporation, for example, would lose from free energy production, even if it had a patent that gave it exclusive use for a few months or years.

If inexpensive free energy devices existed, and were available to the general public, people would then pay next to nothing for their electric service, home heating, and/or gasoline. The world thus would be a better place. The cost of living would decrease significantly. This in turn would reduce poverty worldwide. All businesses would be cheaper to start and to maintain with lower (or no) electric, heating, and/or fuel bills, and shipment and handling costs would also be expected to decrease significantly. Greenhouses in unarable areas of the world (like parts of Russia, Chile, the Middle East, or the Sahara Desert) could be climate-controlled very cheaply, making sustainable farming possible there. More food would then be grown, which would reduce starvation. Air pollution could also be reduced, by free energy devices theorized to be non-polluting.

Criticism of the suppression theories

The main criticism of the theory, usually flawed, is that "free energy" is m,istaken for perpetual motion, which violates a law of conventional physics (usually the laws of conservation of energy). That these devices are absent in the market is more satisfactorily explained by the explanation that they do not and cannot work, and that the alleged persecution of free energy entrepreneurs is merely the legitimate enforcement of securities, anti-fraud, and similar statutes. It is perhaps noteworthy that such inventors seem more inclined to sell investment rights than to seek patents and/or sell energy.

Some conventional physicists, however, acknowledge that there is a possibility for a machine that transforms matter into energy in accordance to theory of relativity (the formula E=m·c2). Indeed, nuclear fuelled power stations operate on precisely that principle: nuclear power stations operate by capturing some of the energy released from the decay of uranium into lighter products. However, the fractional change in mass is always tiny, efficiencies are low, and the conversion is never direct from matter to electrical energy.

Various practical method of transforming matter directly into electrical energy have been researched, but such method have not operated at 100% efficiency, converting all available matter into energy. Claims have been made that magnetic monopoles can be used for this purpose, but monopoles are theoretical and have never been reported found (efforts to synthesize monopoles in particle accelerators have to date failed). Even if a practical mechanism were found, however, this would not be free energy, as it requires the conversion of mass, and therefore would not violate established laws of physics.

Some have claimed that a market economy cannot function if free energy producing sources are allowed is contradicted, some hold, by the fact that air or water, necessary raw materials in many processes, are available to anyone at no cost except transport and storage. Furthermore, if energy were in fact free, then there could (would) still be charges for costs of delivering that energy to the end user (consumer) (likewise, in many parts of the world, water is free in the sense that anyone can pull it out of a river. Purifying and delivering it, however, has profit potential). Moreover, according to established economic theories, significantly lowered energy costs would result in increased economic growth, since the costs of producing goods and services would drop. This has already occurred; raw material and resource commodities (notably coal, aluminum, textiles, and labor) dropped in price as a consequence of the industrial revolution, or when computers dropped in price and increased in power in the last half of the twentieth century. Generally, when a resource becomes cheap, other economic sectors absorb the loss, or new demands will be created.

The American TV show MythBusters examined some methods of gathering free energy. The Discovery Channel program MythBusters attempted to build a perpetual motion machine consisting of several propane tanks arranged in an overbalanced wheel, supposedly to draw energy from a heat difference between two ends of the device (with the lower end moving through water heated by the sun). Technically it did work, but its movement was barely perceptible and created so little electricity the hosts declared it a failure. Since it relied on the sun to heat the water beneath it, the device was essentially an overly complicated solar power generator. They also examined other methods of gathering "free energy". These methods generally failed, were not cost-effective, or were too unwieldy to be feasible. They did generate a spark that zapped one of the show's hosts during the investigation of a radio based device.

Over-unity devices

Over-unity (OU) is the process by which output energy exceeds input power required to produce it. OU advocates distinguish this from "perpetual motion" (and avoid a violation of the law of conservation of energy) by saying that the extra energy is extracted from some infinite, invisible reservoir, such as the "zero-point energy field".

However, to date there is no credible theory or experiment showing that such a reservoir exists. The theory of cold fusion is also controversial, but subject to more serious scientific research, with several allegedly successful tests. However, none of the experiments have been reproduced on a large scale.

Devising such machines has become common enough that the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has made an official policy of refusing to grant patents for Over-unity machines without a working model. One reason for this concern, according to various skeptics, is that a few "inventors" have used official patents to convince gullible potential investors that their machine is "approved" by the Patent Office. The USPTO states:

With the exception of cases involving perpetual motion, a model is not ordinarily required by the Office to demonstrate the operability of a device. If operability of a device is questioned, the applicant must establish it to the satisfaction of the examiner, but he or she may choose his or her own way of so doing.

They state, though, that:

A rejection [of a patent application] on the ground of lack of utility includes the more specific grounds of inoperativeness, involving perpetual motion. A rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 for lack of utility should not be based on grounds that the invention is frivolous, fraudulent or against public policy.

The USPTO has granted a few patents for motors that are claimed to run without net energy input. These patents were issued because, skeptics claim, it was not obvious from the patent that a perpetual motion machine was being claimed. Some of these are:

External articles and references

G
Web
Sites on Energy Suppression
via Google Search
Y
Web
Sites of Energy Suppression
via Yahoo! Search
G
groups
Newsgroups with Energy Suppression
via Google Groups

You can find other information on Energy Suppression by searching through the Wikimedia projects:

See also

- PowerPedia main index
- PESWiki home page

Personal tools

Departments
Sponsored Links

Support
Toolbox