Free Energy?

[Essene]

John Searl has demonstrated this invention and has some scientists perplexed on how it works. A portable power source that is free energy will be sold in 2008. He states that the big energy companies have tried to stop him. Searl has known of this free energy since 1947 or before. It looks like it really works. If it really does work, good bye OPEC and greenhouse gases. If this is true, why have governments not investigated this? Is it to save big oil? From our recent experience of the US government and its lies I have no doubt big oil and energy companies have a hand in trying to discredit this amazing technology that is free and non polluting. http://www.opensourceenergy.org/_layouts/a...yer2.asp?vID=24 ///

This was forwarded to me by a very good friend. Watch the youtube vid first to see how it works. He calls it SEG.

[Lt_Ripley]

interesting. free is a nasty word to the greedy however . sad.

[GreyWeather]

So... the diplomat from 1052AD made magnets?

[Essene]

You are absolutely right, it seems what is best for the people is not best for the corporation. I think the term we the people has gotten a bit sidetracked since corporate greed really runs our government. We should change our national name to "The United States of America Inc."

interesting. free is a nasty word to the greedy however . sad.

[Rocket88]

So wheres this technology gone ?

If the lecture was filmed in 1994, & the technology was around in the 1960s, whats happened since then ?

[Essene]

Here is his web site. http://www.searlsolution.com/

So wheres this technology gone ?

If the lecture was filmed in 1994, & the technology was around in the 1960s, whats happened since then ?

[Rocket88]

Here is his web site. http://www.searlsolution.com/

Thanks for the link, Essene.

Havent had chance to read it yet so ive bookmarked it.

I"m glad things are on-going.

[KBA]

This is good, although the true giant in energy for all would be Tesla, too bad he's gone and can't provide it for us now

[RabidCat]

This is good, although the true giant in energy for all would be Tesla, too bad he's gone and can't provide it for us now

Yup. Fact is, much of Tesla's stuff is still unknown or unused. But don't forget Keeley and others.

Searle's stuff seems to be based on Faraday. The reasons for the unique qualities of the Faraday wheel and the subsequent developments of it, such as Tesla's, is still not quite explained (or at least I've yet to come across an adequate explanation). Tesla himself played with his own modifications of the wheel and was at a loss to explain why there is no back force on it. On the web there are some videos of very simple motors of the type, made with a battery, a wire, a drywall screw, and a button magnet. The explanations are oriented towards spin, effectively the same as Searle's stuff. Tesla wrote that his version, which consisted of two disks coupled with a conductive belt, would lift 900 lb using a 12" pulley, which is quite a lot of torque. But he abandoned it, primarily because his interest was in high voltage/high frequency (he also admonished readers that this motor/generator needed more research).

Strikes me that since General Atomics is using such a device, we might consider it as an alternative to conventional motors, and save energy there; it's just that our electrical philosophy needs to change some.

[Essene]

I did not know Tesla had a similar idea. I have studied mostly the work he did with scalar waves. I have a few good links on that if you want them. If you could please send some links on Tesla's work on his "wheel design" I would greatly appreciate it. As for Searls work on his design, I know of a material that may have some superconducting aspects to it that is very easy to produce and inexpensive and maybe could increase some aspects of Searls design as evidently once the invention increases in speed the temperature drops as is stated in the information I have read about it. The superconductor I know of may have room temperature superconductivity and with temperature changes (high vs low) it may do some amazing things. It is very controversial on what this material can do and I know for a fact it has some beneficial effects but I have not witnessed the superconductivity in person but I have seen a video of its possible superconductivity.

Yup. Fact is, much of Tesla's stuff is still unknown or unused. But don't forget Keeley and others.

Searle's stuff seems to be based on Faraday. The reasons for the unique qualities of the Faraday wheel and the subsequent developments of it, such as Tesla's, is still not quite explained (or at least I've yet to come across an adequate explanation). Tesla himself played with his own modifications of the wheel and was at a loss to explain why there is no back force on it. On the web there are some videos of very simple motors of the type, made with a battery, a wire, a drywall screw, and a button magnet. The explanations are oriented towards spin, effectively the same as Searle's stuff. Tesla wrote that his version, which consisted of two disks coupled with a conductive belt, would lift 900 lb using a 12" pulley, which is quite a lot of torque. But he abandoned it, primarily because his interest was in high voltage/high frequency (he also admonished readers that this motor/generator needed more research).

Strikes me that since General Atomics is using such a device, we might consider it as an alternative to conventional motors, and save energy there; it's just that our electrical philosophy needs to change some.

[RabidCat]

I did not know Tesla had a similar idea. I have studied mostly the work he did with scalar waves. I have a few good links on that if you want them. If you could please send some links on Tesla's work on his "wheel design" I would greatly appreciate it. As for Searls work on his design, I know of a material that may have some superconducting aspects to it that is very easy to produce and inexpensive and maybe could increase some aspects of Searls design as evidently once the invention increases in speed the temperature drops as is stated in the information I have read about it. The superconductor I know of may have room temperature superconductivity and with temperature changes (high vs low) it may do some amazing things. It is very controversial on what this material can do and I know for a fact it has some beneficial effects but I have not witnessed the superconductivity in person but I have seen a video of its possible superconductivity.

Allow me to look around in my library. I am fairly sure that Searle's original experiments (prior to his higher education) were based on the wheel, and turning the generated power back into the thing. The description (by Searle) was that at a certain rpm in the early experiments, the wheel disconnected from the power source and took off. Supposedly this has been duplicated numerous times, although I cannot verify this, it is anecdotal.

As to Tesla's version(s), I'll look up whether he patented. I don't recall that being the case. There are few references to it on the web; mine comes from a compilation of Tesla's experiments and papers, and there's not a lot in there. Tesla's commentary included his puzzlement (wow!!!) on why there seems to be no reverse torques exhibited, entirely unlike all the current motors and generators. I'm in the process of construction of one of these things to find out if what's written is real or not. One must remember that "high frequencies" and "high speeds" in Tesla's time were substantially lower than now, except for the spark gap stuff (which is square wave) that contained the frequencies he loved so much.

[Essene]

By a phone company. Just thought I would send its pretty intersting on theory, Enjoy. http://home.pacbell.net/skeptica/thenewphysics.html III. UNTESTABILITY OF THE FIRST KIND

We are now in a position to discuss the testability of the new physics, which is broadly defined here as the standard paradigm of particle physics,3 the standard paradigm of cosmology and recent variations on these themes: A comprehensive analysis of the testability of these paradigms could fill several books and so only a representative sampling of major testing problems associated with the new physics will be presented here. Proponents of the new physics will no doubt feel that the present discussion does not include positive support for these theories and therefore leaves the reader with too negative an impression. However, countless technical, general, and popular discussions of the new physics have tended to be so dogmatic and optimistic that a small dose of antidote could not hurt and may be very helpful. If the "believers" repeatedly claim the right to present very idealized overviews of the new physics, then they are obligated to grant "skeptics" the chance to present reasoned alternative viewpoints.

(1) Mentioned earlier was the remarkable example of superstring theory, a variation on the standard paradigm of particle physics in which fundamental particles are treated as one-dimensional strings rather than mathematical points. The community of theoretical physicists is very excited about this theory and some regard it as the ultimate unified paradigm of physics: "It is a miracle; it is the theory of the world." 4 However, as attested to by one of the primary spokesmen for the new physics (Steven Weinberg), "there seem to be no decisive tests in sight"1 by which the superstring theory could demonstrate its scientific validity.

(2) The standard paradigm of particle physics has been unable to retrodict successfully the masses of quarks and leptons or the organization of fundamental particles into regular families. The values of more than 20 parameters that are crucial to the paradigm, such as particle masses, the coupling strengths of the forces, and the magnitudes of CP violations, cannot be uniquely derived and therefore are freely adjustable.4-6

(3) The standard model is completely dependent upon the existence of the hypothetical, "Higgs boson," yet none of the variants on the grand unification theme, a cornerstone of the new physics, can predict the mass of this crucial particle or how it interacts with other particles.7 One worries that the next new particle to be found with a mass between a few giga-electron-volts and a tera-electron-volt will be christened the Higgs boson by fiat.

(4) Many theories of the new physics require extra dimensions beyond the four dimensions of space-time with which we are familiar, 5 to 26 dimensions is typical and about 950 dimensions is the latest record. Yet there is no known way to test empirically for the existence of these extra dimensions.8

(5) The hypothesized unification of the four forces (gravitational, electromagnetic, weak, and strong) is predicted to occur at energies that are now and probably forever inaccessible to empirical testing.3

(6) The standard cosmological paradigm asserts that the key events in the evolution of the universe took place within 10-25 s after the Big Bang. However, even in principle, we cannot obtain direct information on the state of the universe prior to decoupling at about 1013 s after the Big Bang.9

(7) The validity of the most widely accepted cosmological model (Big Bang plus inflation) is completely dependent upon the validity of the standard paradigm of particle physics, but the latter, as we have seen, suffers in many ways from untestability of the first kind.9

(8) Standard cosmological models have never been able to retrodict satisfactorily the existence of galaxies, neither did they predict the recently discovered bulk streaming of large numbers of galaxies, nor did they predict the existence of the enigmatic dark matter that constitutes more than 90% of the mass of the universe.10

It is sometimes stated11 and more often implied that "physics is nearly finished," that we have just about figured everything out. The above examples of inherent untestability, which concern fundamental aspects of the "nearly finished physics,'' tell a different story.

Moreover, examples of effective untestability are more numerous and even more worrisome.

IV. UNTESTABILITY OF THE SECOND KIND

[RabidCat]

Mm-hmm. Now that link provides an interesting read.

It supports Tesla's statement about (to paraphrase) 'scientists wandering off into equation after equation and arriving at something that bears no resemblance to reality', doesn't it?

Much of the time (being a practically oriented person), I find the theories and concepts of physics, both classical and particle, to be stretching the imagination a bit far. Classical physics, while testable to some degree, provides us with "laws" that don't really seem to be laws but are accepted as such. Within the particle community, as the article states, testability is far from practical, leading one to complain that every time some roadblock appears, a detour is developed, still untestable.

It also leads to statements I find incomprehensible, such as Hawkings testifying that man will invent an equation that explains the universe. This, to me, is tantamount to belief in Thor or Ra or God, as all require a degree of faith.

I guess I got tired of the circumlocutions years ago, and fell back on what I consider to be the real scientific method: if something appears, it exists as it is observed, and there must be some form of explanation for it. What seems to be a standard now is to counter an observation with some mathematical nonsense that states it cannot exist, instead of accepting it as real and attempting to explain it or figuring out the phenomenon. Such is the case with the Faraday wheel, et al, and so with the Searle derivatives.

I've been in many discussions on this forum wherein I've asked the essential question (or a derivative of this question) where is it that used energy goes? Taking a solenoid (a simple model), it is known that an amount of energy is required to A) energize, and hold the solenoid. It is also known that when the solenoid relaxes, a conversion takes place. It seems that the 'physicists' and 'mathematicians' want to avoid that issue, and it all comes down to 'can't get something for nothing', which can be countered with 'energy can neither be created nor destroyed', a tried and true law, as far as we know. But to get any of these to admit that the converted energy can be re-used is impossible.

It is also true that there is some underlying concept that completely escapes us, possibly used by Tesla, Keeley, et al. In some cases, a practical guide to free energy is readily available, if the mind is open enough to read it; in others, the concepts are more esoteric. In the case of the wheel in a more conventional form, it's easy to construct the device and utilize it with current technology; in the more esoteric forms (Searle), it is not so easy, that being said with the caveat that I haven't yet read the posted website, which I will do, given time. I can see (and verify by experiment) power being generated with a wheel, and logically the evolution into the Tesla version; I can see the use of the high current/low voltage utilized by either a similar device or by converting to higher voltage/lower current a standard motor. The conversion itself is easy for an electronics/power engineer, and is done daily. What appears to be the stumbling block is that the currents supplied can be in thousands of amps, while the voltage is a couple of volts: the question is, Do we care? I think not: power is power, and the conversion thereof is not difficult.

It seems quite logical to me that if a generator exhibits a zero-torque characteristic as described by Tesla and Searle or Ecklin, then it should be explored to practical use and utilized, but these things generally are not. This leads to two inescapable conclusions: First, physicists are in a very deep rut; Second, some power is hindering the utilization of these things. Leaving Searle out (as I don't know his devices), the wheel can be tested and does what is claimed; Ecklin's generator also does as Ecklin claims, and can be made much more efficient than his patents show.

We don't need big oil. And we don't need the pollution that comes with it.

Edit: that funny little face in the middle just got put there. That was supposed to be a B paren. Oh well.

Edited June 29, 2007 by RabidCat

[Essene]

As a layman looking in the box the scientists have built around them selves in mathematical conundrum's, I believe as did Tesla they are missing the point of experimentation then try to write the math to explain it (if they can). Its like to me putting the cart before the horse so to speak. It seems if you cant do the math it "cant" be possible. Here is a video on a room temperature superconductor. http://www.subtleenergies.com/ormus/tw/JumpingAu.wmv

Mm-hmm. Now that link provides an interesting read.

It supports Tesla's statement about (to paraphrase) 'scientists wandering off into equation after equation and arriving at something that bears no resemblance to reality', doesn't it?

Much of the time (being a practically oriented person), I find the theories and concepts of physics, both classical and particle, to be stretching the imagination a bit far. Classical physics, while testable to some degree, provides us with "laws" that don't really seem to be laws but are accepted as such. Within the particle community, as the article states, testability is far from practical, leading one to complain that every time some roadblock appears, a detour is developed, still untestable.

It also leads to statements I find incomprehensible, such as Hawkings testifying that man will invent an equation that explains the universe. This, to me, is tantamount to belief in Thor or Ra or God, as all require a degree of faith.

I guess I got tired of the circumlocutions years ago, and fell back on what I consider to be the real scientific method: if something appears, it exists as it is observed, and there must be some form of explanation for it. What seems to be a standard now is to counter an observation with some mathematical nonsense that states it cannot exist, instead of accepting it as real and attempting to explain it or figuring out the phenomenon. Such is the case with the Faraday wheel, et al, and so with the Searle derivatives.

I've been in many discussions on this forum wherein I've asked the essential question (or a derivative of this question) where is it that used energy goes? Taking a solenoid (a simple model), it is known that an amount of energy is required to A) energize, and hold the solenoid. It is also known that when the solenoid relaxes, a conversion takes place. It seems that the 'physicists' and 'mathematicians' want to avoid that issue, and it all comes down to 'can't get something for nothing', which can be countered with 'energy can neither be created nor destroyed', a tried and true law, as far as we know. But to get any of these to admit that the converted energy can be re-used is impossible.

It is also true that there is some underlying concept that completely escapes us, possibly used by Tesla, Keeley, et al. In some cases, a practical guide to free energy is readily available, if the mind is open enough to read it; in others, the concepts are more esoteric. In the case of the wheel in a more conventional form, it's easy to construct the device and utilize it with current technology; in the more esoteric forms (Searle), it is not so easy, that being said with the caveat that I haven't yet read the posted website, which I will do, given time. I can see (and verify by experiment) power being generated with a wheel, and logically the evolution into the Tesla version; I can see the use of the high current/low voltage utilized by either a similar device or by converting to higher voltage/lower current a standard motor. The conversion itself is easy for an electronics/power engineer, and is done daily. What appears to be the stumbling block is that the currents supplied can be in thousands of amps, while the voltage is a couple of volts: the question is, Do we care? I think not: power is power, and the conversion thereof is not difficult.

It seems quite logical to me that if a generator exhibits a zero-torque characteristic as described by Tesla and Searle or Ecklin, then it should be explored to practical use and utilized, but these things generally are not. This leads to two inescapable conclusions: First, physicists are in a very deep rut; Second, some power is hindering the utilization of these things. Leaving Searle out (as I don't know his devices), the wheel can be tested and does what is claimed; Ecklin's generator also does as Ecklin claims, and can be made much more efficient than his patents show.

We don't need big oil. And we don't need the pollution that comes with it.

Edit: that funny little face in the middle just got put there. That was supposed to be a B paren. Oh well.

[Picturesque Orion]

If this is true, why have governments not investigated this? Is it to save big oil? . http://www.opensourceenergy.org/_layouts/a...yer2.asp?vID=24 ///

This was forwarded to me by a very good friend. Watch the youtube vid first to see how it works. He calls it SEG.

Money, because they loose money, and the goverment hates loosing money.

[RabidCat]

Money, because they loose money, and the goverment hates loosing money.

There is a long history of economic and legal suppression of energy alternatives. Dates way back beyond Tesla, and continues to this day.

[InnerSpace]

Very interesting thread Essene...thanks for posting the links.

[RabidCat]

Very interesting thread Essene...thanks for posting the links.

There are other technologies. If you are interested, say so.

[Essene]

Your very welcome, I just hope his idea does work.

Very interesting thread Essene...thanks for posting the links.

[Essene]

Please forward any info on exotic energy would be great, thanks!!!

There are other technologies. If you are interested, say so.

[RabidCat]

Please forward any info on exotic energy would be great, thanks!!!

One is the Ecklin generator, but as patented it must be modified to be an h-field completion machine rather than a deflection machine.

A second is the Gray motor, which people have been trying to figure out for years, with few even close. A more mundane version is buildable by modifying a standard switched reluctance motor to use similar principles, although this seems to escape the people who study the motor. An engineer looking at the thing should be able to come up with a similar device, more efficient, and more practical, by modifying the SR drives; there are papers written by engineers at Texas Instruments which lend themselves to such modifications. I've built, oh, seven or eight of the things, and worst case recovery was 64%. Best was 89%. What that means is that while the motors were making mechanical power (with 100 watts in) of 90 watts (measured with a torque meter), the recovered electrical energy available for re-use was a minimum of 64 watts and a maximum of 89 watts. Adding the two, worst case was 90+64 = 154, or in efficiency 154 / 100 = 154% efficient. Now, there are people who are going to attack me on this, and I really don't care. The fact is that I've built several of these things, the electronics being my own design, and all have worked, and all have given me both mechanical return and electrical return. They are NOT complex machines, nor are they machines that somehow manufacture energy from nothing: they are machines that convert electrical force into magnetic force and then into mechanical force; when that is accomplished, the energy used to make the magnetic fields is recovered, less the electrical and reluctance losses.

A third is a thing called the electric W a n k e l ( did that because this site doesn't like that word, sexual connotations, I guess), a magnetic motor operating on repulsion principles, where the stator is a conch curved continuous ferrite magnet with one pole facing the rotor, while the rotor is three magnets with like poles facing the stator. The driving device is an electromagnet that takes up the same size as one of the rotor magnets; this driver is pulsed to force the rotor magnets into the stator field. The Japanese developed this from an American patent, and their machine (experimental) developed 45 horsepower. If this device were coupled with the drive electronics of the previously mentioned switched reluctance motor, you'd have a machine that could easily pull a car or truck of nearly any size, at nearly any speed, and never use fuel at all. Period.

I really hate to say this, but virtually infinite energy is available, and all we really need is a little innovation, some great big balls (you DO have to buck big oil, you know), and some common sense. We also (or some of us, at least) need to review the "laws" of physics, and place a different perspective on same. For instance, the one law that seems non-convertible is that energy can neither be created nor destroyed. If all the physicists would simply look at that law, and understand it, then the second machine above becomes self-evident, at least to an engineer such as myself.

And yes, I am a little annoyed with our so-called 'scientists' for putting us in the position in which we live. b******* all, them and the oil companies and the government.

Edited July 3, 2007 by RabidCat

[Essene]

Thanks for the post, I know of a W AN K LE engine (or is it henkle?). Its a rotary type engine that was in the Mazda cars. It was a triangular type rotor that was very powerful despite its displacement size. I also have an very good friend who retired from T I, he was in sales and was one of the top guys (he was a tech before he was in sales). You and he may know each other or have friends of friends who may know you two. In fact he is one of the first I told about M-State material and can easily make it. One of the possible effects of this material is room temp superconductivity. Since you are an engineer, you should be able to produce it your self. I can send here some info on it. Its public knowledge, well its on the net anyway lol. Open source is the only way to further any studies, it works best when all share obviously. I am not a scientist nor is my friend but we are able to grasp the concepts and extrapolate from it. I am more into theory and he is more into hardware. Experimentation is fun, I wish I had the time to do it my self.

One is the Ecklin generator, but as patented it must be modified to be an h-field completion machine rather than a deflection machine.

A second is the Gray motor, which people have been trying to figure out for years, with few even close. A more mundane version is buildable by modifying a standard switched reluctance motor to use similar principles, although this seems to escape the people who study the motor. An engineer looking at the thing should be able to come up with a similar device, more efficient, and more practical, by modifying the SR drives; there are papers written by engineers at Texas Instruments which lend themselves to such modifications. I've built, oh, seven or eight of the things, and worst case recovery was 64%. Best was 89%. What that means is that while the motors were making mechanical power (with 100 watts in) of 90 watts (measured with a torque meter), the recovered electrical energy available for re-use was a minimum of 64 watts and a maximum of 89 watts. Adding the two, worst case was 90+64 = 154, or in efficiency 154 / 100 = 154% efficient. Now, there are people who are going to attack me on this, and I really don't care. The fact is that I've built several of these things, the electronics being my own design, and all have worked, and all have given me both mechanical return and electrical return. They are NOT complex machines, nor are they machines that somehow manufacture energy from nothing: they are machines that convert electrical force into magnetic force and then into mechanical force; when that is accomplished, the energy used to make the magnetic fields is recovered, less the electrical and reluctance losses.

A third is a thing called the electric W a n k e l ( did that because this site doesn't like that word, sexual connotations, I guess), a magnetic motor operating on repulsion principles, where the stator is a conch curved continuous ferrite magnet with one pole facing the rotor, while the rotor is three magnets with like poles facing the stator. The driving device is an electromagnet that takes up the same size as one of the rotor magnets; this driver is pulsed to force the rotor magnets into the stator field. The Japanese developed this from an American patent, and their machine (experimental) developed 45 horsepower. If this device were coupled with the drive electronics of the previously mentioned switched reluctance motor, you'd have a machine that could easily pull a car or truck of nearly any size, at nearly any speed, and never use fuel at all. Period.

I really hate to say this, but virtually infinite energy is available, and all we really need is a little innovation, some great big balls (you DO have to buck big oil, you know), and some common sense. We also (or some of us, at least) need to review the "laws" of physics, and place a different perspective on same. For instance, the one law that seems non-convertible is that energy can neither be created nor destroyed. If all the physicists would simply look at that law, and understand it, then the second machine above becomes self-evident, at least to an engineer such as myself.

And yes, I am a little annoyed with our so-called 'scientists' for putting us in the position in which we live. b******* all, them and the oil companies and the government.

[almcdaniel]

John Searl has demonstrated this invention and has some scientists perplexed on how it works. A portable power source that is free energy will be sold in 2008. He states that the big energy companies have tried to stop him. Searl has known of this free energy since 1947 or before. It looks like it really works. If it really does work, good bye OPEC and greenhouse gases. If this is true, why have governments not investigated this? Is it to save big oil? From our recent experience of the US government and its lies I have no doubt big oil and energy companies have a hand in trying to discredit this amazing technology that is free and non polluting. http://www.opensourceenergy.org/_layouts/a...yer2.asp?vID=24 ///

This was forwarded to me by a very good friend. Watch the youtube vid first to see how it works. He calls it SEG.

Free energy will never be realized in our liftime. Not as long as the government is profiting from all the current sorces of energy! Yes it probably already exists but could you imagine how that would hurt the economy? Just like electric cars. Why do ya think they were taken off the market??

[RabidCat]

Thanks for the post, I know of a W AN K LE engine (or is it henkle?). Its a rotary type engine that was in the Mazda cars. It was a triangular type rotor that was very powerful despite its displacement size. I also have an very good friend who retired from T I, he was in sales and was one of the top guys (he was a tech before he was in sales). You and he may know each other or have friends of friends who may know you two. In fact he is one of the first I told about M-State material and can easily make it. One of the possible effects of this material is room temp superconductivity. Since you are an engineer, you should be able to produce it your self. I can send here some info on it. Its public knowledge, well its on the net anyway lol. Open source is the only way to further any studies, it works best when all share obviously. I am not a scientist nor is my friend but we are able to grasp the concepts and extrapolate from it. I am more into theory and he is more into hardware. Experimentation is fun, I wish I had the time to do it my self.

I'll look at that, although superconductivity is not necessary for the mentioned machines.

The electric version of the engine designed by Felix Wa nkel is sort of a similar concept, although I don't know why the Japanese called it that. Most of the mechanical energy generated comes from the permanent magnets on the rotor and stator, with the small push past rest from the electromagnet. There is a paper that was written on this thing, which I either downloaded or saved the link somewhere. I'll see if I can find it. I've been unable to find any diagrams of it on the web. I first saw it in Popular Science sometime in the 1980s, and somewhere I have a reprint of the patent upon which it is based (so-called "prior art").

For anyone who cares, if you google Faraday wheel, there are a few interesting videos floating around about terribly simple motors of the Faraday type. Tesla's experiments with the thing imply that there is no reverse torque or back emf, which would indicate that these devices could be a viable path to greater efficiency, and General Atomics is building (or is going to be building) large versions for the USN for ships. Which tells me that these are operating motors.

[RabidCat]

Free energy will never be realized in our liftime. Not as long as the government is profiting from all the current sorces of energy! Yes it probably already exists but could you imagine how that would hurt the economy? Just like electric cars. Why do ya think they were taken off the market??

I'll differ slightly. It will be, and is, being realized on small scale installations. Those are constructed by individuals for their own use. On a large scale, you are correct. As with the electric car, the plain fact is that if properly designed, there is little maintenance and substantially higher efficiency than either gas or diesel. However, another fact is that if you drive an electric car, you don't pay gas taxes, and the gov doesn't think that's very nice.