CP Snow in his "Two Cultures" asserted that everyone should be taught
not only classics like "Hamlet " but also the the second law of
thermodynamics which is the basis for Herb's principles. If that law
were just a capitalist plot one might imagine that some country
somewhere would have harnessed these cheap energy source by now. Too
bad that it isn't. Too bad that Snow's suggestion hasn't been widely
However, many methods of energy conservation that wouldn't meaningfully
reduce quality of life are possible: an interesting if economically
Panglossian book on this subject is Lovins, Lovins and Hawken's
"Natural Capital," which does take into account the second law.
On Sep 6, 2004, at 7:46 PM, herb fox wrote:
> Mitchel m'man:
> It is not possible taking into account all interactions to get
> something for nothing. It is possible to harness energy that exists,
> in which case the "cost" of the energy is the material resources and
> energy including human labor required to harness it (and distribute
> it). Of course if the energy source is renewable, one must include
> the cost of renewing the source. If it is not renewable its permanent
> loss is a significant cost. We can reasonably consider as arbitrarily
> long-lived any existing source of energy that will outlast the life of
> our planet (as a viable place for our species) The primary source of
> energy for the earth, the sun, is an energy source that we cannot use
> up by harnessing, which is not to say that there aren't ways of
> harnessing the sun's energy that can screw up the environment.
> First principle: Nothing is "free."
> Second principle: One cannot get more out than one puts in.
> Third principle: Any proposal that promises to get more out than is
> put in is not counting everything.
> I suggest that you use the third pronciple to either reject as
> fraud most of what Lindemann discusses or challenge him to balance the
> books, that is, insist that every interaction of first order of
> magnitude be counted to satisfy the first two principles.
> As for interactions: It does appear that Peter Lindemann is part
> of an incestuous circle of interacting modern flat-earth types. As
> for energy: In this email i have expended an amount, out of respect
> for you, that is more than Lindemann's article deserves in my
> judgement. The article of itself was enough to discourage me from
> checking out the websites Etc.
> Don't interpret these remarks to be in any way an endorsement of
> the current energy consumption and generation practices, nor a
> put-down of creative efforts toward acceptable and less costly methods
> of energy generation. But buying into kooky science can diminsh your
> credibility--caveat emptor.
> herb fox
> “It is not a sign of good health to be well adjusted to a sick society”
> [log in to unmask] wrote:
> I am interested in feedback on the SCIENCE references on renewable
> cited in part one of the Peter Lindermann article, below. (I am not
> interested in Lindermann's rightwing speculations on why renewable
> technologies are being suppressed, and so I've deleted the second half
> If you can give me feedback on the scientific sources / inventions /
> paradigms cited here, that would be very helpful to me.
> This exchange was triggered by debates over Òcold fusion.Ó
> Mitchel Cohen
> Original Message:
> From: ecopilgrim [log in to unmask]
> It seems to me that there are some very good ideas there in this
> as to why so-called "Free Energy" is being withheld from the world and
> why its existence is hidden from public view. The capitalist economy
> today tied to that of non-renewable resources and it very much behooves
> the elites who hold control over the Global Monetocracy System to
> prolong this system for as long as possible so that they may continue
> "milk" the system for all its worth. Capitalism is not compatible with
> renewable energy system in that renewable energy can be "free" for all
> to use and thus will undermine the capitalist thsystem as the elites
> will no longer be able to control via keeping people tied into energy
> This article might be considered along with Jean Harris' comment on
> infinite amounts of "cheap energy" and its effect on civilization,
> I just posted to the Co-learner's group. Eco
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Reinhold Ziegler [mailto:[log in to unmask]] st
> The following is the best article that I have come across on "free
> energy" and all of its variants. Please pass it on to your list.
> Several breakthroughs are on the horizon. I will let you know once we
> check them out.
> Best Wishes,
> Reinhold Ziegler, DYNAMIS, R&D Incubator and Business Accelerator.
> The World of Free Energy
> By Peter Lindemann, D.Sc.
> Living Energies by Callum Coats
> The Free Energy Secrets of Cold Electricity by Peter Lindemann, D.Sc.
> Applied Modern 20th Century Aether Science by Dr. Robert Adams
> Physics Without Einstein by Dr. Harold Aspden
> Secrets of Cold War Technology by Gerry Vassilatos
> The Coming Energy Revolution by Jeane Manning
> http://www2.murray.net.au/users/egel/content1.htm developed by Geoff
> Egel in Australia. Best free-energy site on the net!
> http://www.free-energy.cc <http://www.free-energy.cc/> developed by
> Clear Tech, Inc. and Dr. Peter Lindemann
> http://jnaudin.free.fr <http://jnaudin.free.fr/> developed by JLN Labs
> in France
> http://www.1dove.com/fe/index.html Jim's Free Energy Page in the USA
> http://www.keelynet.com <http://www.keelynet.com/> developed by Jerry
> Decker in the USA
> http://www.xogen.com <http://www.xogen.com/> site for super
> electrolysis technology
> http://www.rumormillnews.com <http://www.rumormillnews.com />
> site for all kinds of alternative news, with many links
> Patents: (most can be viewed at www.delphion.com ) This list is nothing
> more than a sample of inventions that produce free energy.
> Tesla USP #685,957
> Freedman USP #2,796,345
> Richardson USP #4,077,001
> Frenette USP #4,143,639
> Perkins USP #4,424,797
> Gray USP #4,595,975
> Meyer USP #4,936,961
> Chambers USP #6,126,794
> In the late 1880's, trade journals in the electrical sciences were
> predicting "free electricity" in the near future. Incredible
> about the nature of electricity were becoming common place. Nikola
> was demonstrating "wireless lighting" and other wonders associated with
> high frequency currents. There was an excitement about the future like
> never before.
> Within 20 years, there would be automobiles, airplanes, movies,
> music, telephones, radio, and practical cameras. The Victorian Age was
> giving way to something totally new. For the first time in history,
> common people were encouraged to envision a utopian future, filled with
> abundant modern transportation and communication, as well as jobs,
> housing and food for everyone. Disease would be conquered, and so would
> poverty. Life was getting better, and this time, everyone was going to
> get "a piece of the pie." So, what happened? In the midst of this
> technological explosion, where did the energy breakthroughs go? Was all
> of this excitement about "free electricity", which happened just before
> the beginning of the last century, all just wishful thinking that "real
> science" eventually disproved?
> Current State of Technology
> Actually, the answer to that question is NO. In fact, the opposite is
> true. Spectacular energy technologies were developed right along with
> the other breakthroughs. Since that time, multiple methods for
> vast amounts of energy at extremely low cost have been developed. None
> of these technologies have made it to the "open" consumer market as an
> article of commerce, however. Exactly why this is true will be
> shortly. But first, I would like to describe to you a short list of
> "free energy" technologies that I am currently aware of, and that are
> proven beyond all reasonable doubt. The common feature connecting all
> these discoveries, is that they use a small amount of one form of
> to control or release a large amount of a different kind of energy.
> of them tap the underlying Æther field in some way; a source of energy
> conveniently ignored by "modern" science.
> 1) Radiant Energy.
> Nikola Tesla's Magnifying Transmitter, T. Henry Moray's Radiant Energy
> Device, Edwin Gray's EMA Motor, and Paul Baumann's Testatika Machine
> run on Radiant Energy. This natural energy form can be gathered
> from the environment (mistakenly called "static" electricity) or
> extracted from ordinary electricity by the method called
> "fractionation." Radiant Energy can perform the same wonders as
> electricity, at less than 1% of the cost. It does not behave exactly
> like electricity, however, which has contributed to the scientific
> community's misunderstanding of it. The Methernitha Community in
> Switzerland currently has 5 or 6 working models of fuelless,
> self-running devices that tap this energy.
> 2) Permanent Magnets.
> Dr. Robert Adams (NZ) has developed astounding designs of electric
> motors, generators and heaters that run on permanent magnets. One such
> device draws 100 watts of electricity from the source, generates 100
> watts to recharge the source, and produces over 140 BTU's of heat in
> minutes! Dr. Tom Bearden (USA) has two working models of a permanent
> magnet powered electrical transformer. It uses a 6-watt electrical
> to control the path of a magnetic field coming out of a permanent
> magnet. By channeling the magnetic field, first to one output coil and
> then a second output coil, and by doing this repeatedly and rapidly in
> "Ping-Pong" fashion, the device can produce a 96-watt electrical output
> with no moving parts. Bearden calls his device a Motionless
> Electromagnetic Generator, or MEG. The principles for this type of
> device were first disclosed by Frank Richardson (USA) in 1978. Troy
> (USA) has working models of a special magnetized fan that heats up as
> spins. It takes exactly the same amount of energy to spin the fan
> whether it is generating heat or not. Beyond these developments,
> multiple inventors have identified working mechanisms that produce
> torque from permanent magnets alone.
> 3) Mechanical Heaters.
> There are two classes of machines that transform a small amount of
> mechanical energy into a large amount of heat. The best of these purely
> mechanical designs are the rotating cylinder systems designed by
> Frenette (USA) and Perkins (USA). In these machines, one cylinder is
> rotated within another cylinder with about an eighth of an inch of
> clearance between them. The space between the cylinders is filled with
> liquid such as water or oil, and it is this "working fluid" that heats
> up as the inner cylinder spins. Another method uses magnets mounted on
> wheel to produce large eddy currents in a plate of aluminum, causing
> aluminum to heat up rapidly. These magnetic heaters have been
> demonstrated by Muller (Canada), Adams (NZ) and Reed (USA). All of
> systems can produce ten times more heat than standard methods using the
> same energy input.
> 4) Super-Efficient Electrolysis.
> Water can be broken into Hydrogen and Oxygen using electricity.
> chemistry books claim that this process requires more energy than can
> recovered when the gases are recombined. This is true only under the
> worst case scenario. When water is hit with its own molecular resonant
> frequency, using a system developed by Stan Meyers (USA) and again
> recently by Xogen Power, Inc., it collapses into Hydrogen and Oxygen
> with very little electrical input. Also, using different electrolytes
> (additives that make the water conduct electricity better) changes the
> efficiency of the process dramatically. It is also known that certain
> geometric structures and surface textures work better than others do.
> The implication is that unlimited amounts of Hydrogen fuel can be made
> to drive engines (like in your car) for the cost of water. Even more
> amazing is the fact that a special metal alloy was patented by Freedman
> (USA) in 1957 that spontaneously breaks water into Hydrogen and Oxygen
> with no outside electrical input and without causing any chemical
> changes in the metal itself. This means that this special metal alloy
> can make Hydrogen from water for free, forever.
> 5) Implosion/Vortex.
> All major industrial engines use the release of heat to cause expansion
> and pressure to produce work, like in your car engine. Nature uses the
> opposite process of cooling to cause suction and vacuum to produce
> like in a tornado. Viktor Schauberger (Austria) was the first to build
> working models of Implosion Engines in the 1930's and 1940's. Since
> time, Callum Coats has published extensively on Schauberger's work in
> his book Living Energies and subsequently, a number of researchers have
> built working models of Implosion Turbine Engines. These are fuelless
> engines that produce mechanical work from energy accessed from a
> There are also much simpler designs that use vortex motions to tap a
> combination of gravity and centrifugal force to produce a continuous
> motion in fluids.
> 6) Cold Fusion.
> In March 1989, two Chemists from Brigham Young University in Utah (USA)
> announced that they had produced atomic fusion reactions in a simple
> tabletop device. The claims were "debunked" within 6 months and the
> public lost interest. Nevertheless, Cold Fusion is very real. Not only
> has excess heat production been repeatedly documented, but also low
> energy atomic element transmutation has been catalogued, involving
> dozens of different reactions! This technology definitely can produce
> low cost energy and scores of other important industrial processes.
> 7) Solar Assisted Heat Pumps.
> The refrigerator in your kitchen is the only "free energy machine" you
> currently own. It's an electrically operated heat pump. It uses one
> amount of energy (electricity) to move three amounts of energy (heat).
> This gives it a "co-efficient of performance" (COP) of about 3. Your
> refrigerator uses one amount of electricity to pump three amounts of
> heat from the inside of the refrigerator to the outside of the
> refrigerator. This is its typical use, but it is the worst possible way
> to use the technology. Here's why. A heat pump pumps heat from the
> "source" of heat to the "sink" or place that absorbs the heat. The
> "source" of heat should obviously be HOT and the "sink" for heat should
> obviously be COLD for this process to work the best. In your
> refrigerator, it's exactly the opposite. The "source" of heat is inside
> the box, which is COLD, and the "sink" for heat is the room temperature
> air of your kitchen, which is warmer than the source. This is why the
> COP remains low for your kitchen refrigerator. But this is not true for
> all heat pumps. COP's of 8 to 10 are easily attained with solar
> heat pumps. In such a device, a heat pump draws heat from a solar
> collector and dumps the heat into a large underground absorber, which
> remains at 55° F, and mechanical energy is extracted in the transfer.
> This process is equivalent to a steam engine that extracts mechanical
> energy between the boiler and the condenser, except that it uses a
> that "boils" at a much lower temperature than water. One such system
> that was tested in the 1970's produced 350 hp, measured on a
> Dynamometer, in a specially designed engine from just 100-sq. ft. of
> solar collector. (This is NOT the system promoted by Dennis Lee.) The
> amount of energy it took to run the compressor (input) was less than 20
> hp, so this system produced more than 17 times more energy than it took
> to keep it going! It could power a small neighborhood from the roof of
> hot tub gazebo, using exactly the same technology that keeps the food
> cold in your kitchen. Currently, there is an industrial scale heat pump
> system just north of Kona, Hawaii that generates electricity from
> temperature differences in ocean water.
> There are dozens of other systems that I have not mentioned, many of
> them are as viable and well tested as the ones I have just recounted.
> But this short list is sufficient to make my point: free energy
> technology is here, now. It offers the world pollution-free, energy
> abundance for everyone, everywhere. It is now possible to stop the
> production of "greenhouse gases" and shut down all of the nuclear power
> plants. We can now desalinate unlimited amounts of seawater at an
> affordable price, and bring adequate fresh water to even the most
> habitats. Transportation costs and the production costs for just about
> everything can drop dramatically. Food can even be grown in heated
> greenhouses in the winter, anywhere. All of these wonderful benefits
> that can make life on this planet so much easier and better for
> have been postponed for decades. Why? Whose purposes are served by this
> END PART ONE
> mail2web - Check your email from the web at
> http://mail2web.com/ .