Cold Heat from Canada, a documentary.

[Chet]

A documentary about an overunity device that was shut down immediately prior to its commercial deployment by Exxon Oil pressuring Pres. Eisenhower to lean on the Canadian premiere to put a stop to it. The research scientists waited, in vain, for their subsequent appointment with Pres. Kennedy which was scheduled for one month after his assassination.

[Psi]

The problem with all these stories is that oil executives want money more than they want to simply produce oil.
Any working over-unity device could generate way more money than continuing to work for the oil industry.
So while it might make sense that the inventor might end up dead and the device taken, it makes no sense why the technology would be buried rather than patented and sold.

You just won't ever get global co-operation to suppress something if more money can be made from licensing/selling it.

It's like saying a group of people are choosing to sit on an absurd amount of gold and choosing to never spend it.
In some ways that is more unlikely than the over-unity device existing.

[Chet]

The problem with all these stories is that oil executives want money more than they want to simply produce oil.
Any working over-unity device could generate way more money than continuing to work for the oil industry.
So while it might make sense that the inventor might end up dead and the device taken, it makes no sense why the technology would be buried rather than patented and sold.

You just won't ever get global co-operation to suppress something if more money can be made from licensing/selling it.

It's like saying a group of people are choosing to sit on an absurd amount of gold and choosing to never spend it.
In some ways that is more unlikely than the over-unity device existing.

Orange growers in California are subsidized by government to bury their orange crop.

Politics? California doesn't deserve to earn any revenue from orange sales while it's OK for Florida to sell oranges?

There must be more to this mystery than mere commerce or else your logic would hold.

Maybe it's about controlling power. Once you've got it, you don't want to let go of it. So, like your gold analogy, power works similarly although may trump monetary considerations. In fact, I'm willing to bet that the wealthy, who already have lots of money, don't need to get any more but may need to prevent anyone else from getting lots of money 'cuz if they let that happen, then they'd not be so powerful anymore having been upstaged by the newcomer.

Just a thought that power is complicated what would otherwise be a straightforward logical argument along your lines of reasoning.

[paul cotter]

NO.

[Chet]

NO.

Shall we risk a double negative for emphasis ?

If two wrongs don't make a right, does an argument make nothing right?

[paul cotter]

That is all you are getting when you put up trash like that. There is no such thing as cold electricity, or hot electricity for that matter. "Electricity" is a vague term for electrical energy and it does not have a tangible existence.

[magic]

The problem with all these stories is that oil executives want money more than they want to simply produce oil.
Any working over-unity device could generate way more money than continuing to work for the oil industry.
So while it might make sense that the inventor might end up dead and the device taken, it makes no sense why the technology would be buried rather than patented and sold.

The patent would be expired by now and their business worth nothing.
Meanwhile, as oil deposits are running dry, prices are going up and Exxon is doing well.

[SteveThackery]

The problem with all these stories is that oil executives want money more than they want to simply produce oil.
Any working over-unity device could generate way more money than continuing to work for the oil industry.

Actually I don't agree with that. The oil executives have full control over the production of oil, so yes - they can make as much money as they want by controlling how much oil they produce.

They wouldn't have that level of control over an over-unity device, so it's unlikely they could make even more money from such a device than they could from oil. An over-unity device is a piece of tech that would almost certainly escape the control of the inventor, patent holder and investors. It would be reverse-engineered, and before you know it China would be churning them out dirt cheap.

So I can see the argument that the oil industry would have an incentive to suppress a source of unlimited energy. If that energy was effectively free, then it would be a threat to the industry.

HAVING SAID THAT, I don't believe an over-unity device has ever existed, so I don't believe vested interests have ever needed to suppress such a thing.

[Chet]

The problem with all these stories is that oil executives want money more than they want to simply produce oil.
Any working over-unity device could generate way more money than continuing to work for the oil industry.

Actually I don't agree with that. The oil executives have full control over the production of oil, so yes - they can make as much money as they want by controlling how much oil they produce.

They wouldn't have that level of control over an over-unity device, so it's unlikely they could make even more money from such a device than they could from oil. An over-unity device is a piece of tech that would almost certainly escape the control of the inventor, patent holder and investors. It would be reverse-engineered, and before you know it China would be churning them out dirt cheap.

So I can see the argument that the oil industry would have an incentive to suppress a source of unlimited energy. If that energy was effectively free, then it would be a threat to the industry.

HAVING SAID THAT, I don't believe an over-unity device has ever existed, so I don't believe vested interests have ever needed to suppress such a thing.

All of that could be true if conspiracy were not in force since the word denotes "like-minded individuals working towards a common goal" regardless of anything else it may connote. And since the United States of America has been a federal corporation since the days immediately subsequent to their civil war, the United States federal corporation doesn't think any differently than do small-fry corporations think but with the added advantage of additional clout at its disposal.

There are several vested interests that could lose their monopoly of power if the cost of most, if not all, energy were severely reduced: the department of defense, the banking establishment, the department of justice, ... just to name a few, not to mention private industry.

If the tax man is the most feared governmental agency, then why would they -- of all vested interests, combined -- want to act like a wimp (when they've been intimidating to almost everyone all of recent memory) and concede to less revenue collection?

[paul cotter]

Living in Ireland I am not in a position to comment on the governmental arrangements of the USA. Conspiracies do exist, of course but not in the field of energy. The conservation of energy and momentum are locally rock solid and no free energy/overunity exist.

[Chet]

Living in Ireland I am not in a position to comment on the governmental arrangements of the USA. Conspiracies do exist, of course but not in the field of energy. The conservation of energy and momentum are locally rock solid and no free energy/overunity exist.

Technically, you may be right. But I'm not formally trained to uphold a professional position, so I'm not liable in any way to uphold common sense. From my perspective, I agree with posters, here, who have mildly suggested that a loose interpretation of "free energy" is a lack of accountability (ie, personal cost), such as: wind, solar, waves, geothermal, etc. Energy should always be like that: built into every appliance costing the consumer only once during the purchase of that appliance. Energy should not have to be an extra, yet primary, commodity.

It's almost a setup, in a sense, the splitting up of energy from its usage, which begs the question whether appliances are like advertisers targeting children to get their parents involved in a commercial venture in a round-about sort of way. So, explicitly: buy our washing machine yields the implicit: buy more energy.

There was a time when my aunt and grandma hung the wash out on the line, outside, to dry. It smelled nice and felt soft without fabric softener's yucky stench.

[paul cotter]

You cannot split energy from it's useage: in doing work a certain amount of energy is used up and if 100%efficiency could be attained then the work done and the energy used would be equal. The only device that I am aware of that is very close to this 100%figure is the humble electric heater. Off topic: I still hang out wet clothes on a line to dry.

[Psi]

True, but it's still technically possible to find something that appears to be over-unity and only discover where all the excess energy has been coming from N years later.
And in that scenario it might as well be over-unity until proved not to be, especially if N is more than 100 years.

I'm not saying that is a likely occurrence, just saying there is some wiggle room in a hypothetical scenario if confronted with a seemingly working over-unity device where you really don't know if it's over-unity or not until you either redefine physics or prove the energy is actually coming from somewhere.

[Electrodynamic]

The oil and gas sector would never allow a competing technology to go public for obvious reasons.

First, even if they bought into the technology they would have trillions of dollars of stranded assets. Every corporate mandate claims no person will take any action which threatens profits or they will be terminated. What the corporations do is buy the competing technology and bury it. This isn't a conspiracy it's literally common business practice.

There is also the snow ball effect and big companies which buy out all the competition get bigger and bigger. This is why were now seeing more and more trillion dollar companies which could drop 50 billion without blinking an eye. A few billion dollars is pocket change to remove a competing technology.

Now it's more out in the open and after taking out other world leaders and invading other countries trump said "we want the oil", "it's our oil". So lets not pretend this is anything other than another power grab by big oil companies.

I think it's wild that all the dummies saying how great oil is will now be paying double at the pumps, utilities and the grocery store. I know a lot of people who were totally clueless. They thought making oil companies great again meant lower prices, lol. I wonder what they are going to do when the delivered price of oil hits $250/bbl?.



 

[Xena E]

True, but it's still technically possible to find something that appears to be over-unity and only discover where all the excess energy has been coming from N years later.

Ummm...

You mean like... energy that is leaking through into our reality from another dimension, that is harvested by some purely empirically developed means, its true source only to be discovered when 'new science' uncovers it's origin?

Ya right

 

[TimFox]

Living in Ireland I am not in a position to comment on the governmental arrangements of the USA. Conspiracies do exist, of course but not in the field of energy. The conservation of energy and momentum are locally rock solid and no free energy/overunity exist.

Technically, you may be right. But I'm not formally trained to uphold a professional position, so I'm not liable in any way to uphold common sense. From my perspective, I agree with posters, here, who have mildly suggested that a loose interpretation of "free energy" is a lack of accountability (ie, personal cost), such as: wind, solar, waves, geothermal, etc. Energy should always be like that: built into every appliance costing the consumer only once during the purchase of that appliance. Energy should not have to be an extra, yet primary, commodity.

It's almost a setup, in a sense, the splitting up of energy from its usage, which begs the question whether appliances are like advertisers targeting children to get their parents involved in a commercial venture in a round-about sort of way. So, explicitly: buy our washing machine yields the implicit: buy more energy.

There was a time when my aunt and grandma hung the wash out on the line, outside, to dry. It smelled nice and felt soft without fabric softener's yucky stench.

I submit that it has never happened that the energy required to operate an appliance has been priced into its purchase.
After buying a horse, the rider needs to purchase fodder to feed it.
When buying a locomotive, the railway buys fuel to run it.
The driver of a motor vehicle buys gasoline for it as he runs it for years.
The purchaser of a washing machine buys electricity from the utility to operate it.
Etc.

[SteveThackery]

I submit that it has never happened that the energy required to operate an appliance has been priced into its purchase.

I know! Those god-forsaken musical birthday cards. 

[Chet]

Living in Ireland I am not in a position to comment on the governmental arrangements of the USA. Conspiracies do exist, of course but not in the field of energy. The conservation of energy and momentum are locally rock solid and no free energy/overunity exist.

Technically, you may be right. But I'm not formally trained to uphold a professional position, so I'm not liable in any way to uphold common sense. From my perspective, I agree with posters, here, who have mildly suggested that a loose interpretation of "free energy" is a lack of accountability (ie, personal cost), such as: wind, solar, waves, geothermal, etc. Energy should always be like that: built into every appliance costing the consumer only once during the purchase of that appliance. Energy should not have to be an extra, yet primary, commodity.

It's almost a setup, in a sense, the splitting up of energy from its usage, which begs the question whether appliances are like advertisers targeting children to get their parents involved in a commercial venture in a round-about sort of way. So, explicitly: buy our washing machine yields the implicit: buy more energy.

There was a time when my aunt and grandma hung the wash out on the line, outside, to dry. It smelled nice and felt soft without fabric softener's yucky stench.

I submit that it has never happened that the energy required to operate an appliance has been priced into its purchase.
After buying a horse, the rider needs to purchase fodder to feed it.
When buying a locomotive, the railway buys fuel to run it.
The driver of a motor vehicle buys gasoline for it as he runs it for years.
The purchaser of a washing machine buys electricity from the utility to operate it.
Etc.

We're not arguing since those were not my examples. In fact, you're reinforcing my point that nothing has changed. We still use the same psychology from our historical narrative which proves that it's not any new conspiracy, but a very ancient one founded upon antiquated technologies.

[TimFox]

Chet:  quoting from you.
"Energy should always be like that: built into every appliance costing the consumer only once during the purchase of that appliance. Energy should not have to be an extra, yet primary, commodity."

[Zero999]

The problem with all these stories is that oil executives want money more than they want to simply produce oil.
Any working over-unity device could generate way more money than continuing to work for the oil industry.

Actually I don't agree with that. The oil executives have full control over the production of oil, so yes - they can make as much money as they want by controlling how much oil they produce.

They wouldn't have that level of control over an over-unity device, so it's unlikely they could make even more money from such a device than they could from oil. An over-unity device is a piece of tech that would almost certainly escape the control of the inventor, patent holder and investors. It would be reverse-engineered, and before you know it China would be churning them out dirt cheap.

So I can see the argument that the oil industry would have an incentive to suppress a source of unlimited energy. If that energy was effectively free, then it would be a threat to the industry.

HAVING SAID THAT, I don't believe an over-unity device has ever existed, so I don't believe vested interests have ever needed to suppress such a thing.

The oil companies haven't managed to suppress scientific research into emissions from fossil fuels causing climate change, so the idea they have the power to suppress free energy is even more absurd.

As I've said before. I don't see how any reasonably educated, sane person can seriously entertain the idea of energy from nothing, because it is the same as making something i.e. gold, steel, oxygen etc. out of a vacuum. If energy from nothing is possible, then so is making diamond from nothing. Energy and matter are equivalent to one another. E = mc².

[Chet]

The problem with all these stories is that oil executives want money more than they want to simply produce oil.
Any working over-unity device could generate way more money than continuing to work for the oil industry.

Actually I don't agree with that. The oil executives have full control over the production of oil, so yes - they can make as much money as they want by controlling how much oil they produce.

They wouldn't have that level of control over an over-unity device, so it's unlikely they could make even more money from such a device than they could from oil. An over-unity device is a piece of tech that would almost certainly escape the control of the inventor, patent holder and investors. It would be reverse-engineered, and before you know it China would be churning them out dirt cheap.

So I can see the argument that the oil industry would have an incentive to suppress a source of unlimited energy. If that energy was effectively free, then it would be a threat to the industry.

HAVING SAID THAT, I don't believe an over-unity device has ever existed, so I don't believe vested interests have ever needed to suppress such a thing.

The oil companies haven't managed to suppress scientific research into emissions from fossil fuels causing climate change, so the idea they have the power to suppress free energy is even more absurd.

As I've said before. I don't see how any reasonably educated, sane person can seriously entertain the idea of energy from nothing, because it is the same as making something i.e. gold, steel, oxygen etc. out of a vacuum. If energy from nothing is possible, then so is making diamond from nothing. Energy and matter are equivalent to one another. E = mc².

You're right. That's why Exxon Oil leaned on Pres. Eisenhower to lean on the premiere of Canada so that it would be a governmental interference of the highest order (among two dignitaries).

[Electrodynamic]

TimFox

I submit that it has never happened that the energy required to operate an appliance has been priced into its purchase.
After buying a horse, the rider needs to purchase fodder to feed it.

Obviously you have never owned a horse where I have a few. I call them my "lawnmowers" which require little maintenance and no fuel. In fact, the grass they cut is their fuel which is a ingenious concept. My lawn mowers are solar powered because it was solar radiation from the Sun which grew the grass which powered my horse so it could eat even more grass. Their is a lesson to be learned here.

Sure I have to bale some hay/grass to feed them each winter but it's a minor expense if we think about all the time many people spend going round in circles on a conventional lawn mower. As well, if the SHTF I would always have transportation because my rides fuel is the nearest ditch or field. In this respect it's damn near perpetual motion until my horses dies. 

It would seem to me nature is vastly superior in almost every respect compared to most peoples thoughts. Nature builds self-sustainable systems which are meant to endure. Unlike the consume in excess and discard model of most people which is demonstrably unsustainable if not suicidal. You do understand that once we consume everything and there is little left were fucked don't you?. Which begs the question... what then?.

[Psi]

It's pretty obvious that the big oil companies put pressure on governments and regulators to slow the rollout of anything allowing people to create free energy like solar/wind, since that is reducing their profits.
But their power and abilities to pull off massive coverups are pretty limited vs what people think.
I really doubt they could suppress any technology that actually works for long. It's more likely that they keep buying technology that doesnt work because they were tricked into thinking it does.

[Xena E]

TimFox

I submit that it has never happened that the energy required to operate an appliance has been priced into its purchase.
After buying a horse, the rider needs to purchase fodder to feed it.

Obviously you have never owned a horse where I have a few. I call them my "lawnmowers" which require little maintenance and no fuel.

Thanks for that Electrodynamic... I laughed so fucking hard I nearly pissed my panties!

Completely off topic, however:-

My horse is on my land and therefore has free grass keep... however if he's in anything more than moderate work he requires supplementary feed. If you take a horse on a metaled road regularly they need to be shod...  farriers don't work for free, nor do veterinarians... then there's tack... insurance... I reckon I get it cheap, perhaps 5 grand a year to take care of him reasonably well, any less could probably be considered neglectful...

I run a small car for less... especially so if taking mileage into account.

[Electrodynamic]

TimFox

I submit that it has never happened that the energy required to operate an appliance has been priced into its purchase.
After buying a horse, the rider needs to purchase fodder to feed it.

Obviously you have never owned a horse where I have a few. I call them my "lawnmowers" which require little maintenance and no fuel.

Thanks for that Electrodynamic... I laughed so fucking hard I nearly pissed my panties!

Completely off topic, however:-

My horse is on my land and therefore has free grass keep... however if he's in anything more than moderate work he requires supplementary feed. If you take a horse on a metaled road regularly they need to be shod...  farriers don't work for free, nor do veterinarians... then there's tack... insurance... I reckon I get it cheap, perhaps 5 grand a year to take care of him reasonably well, any less could probably be considered neglectful...

I run a small car for less... especially so if taking mileage into account.

I'm glad you found it so funny.

We have a couple older horses, no shoes, no tack, no insurance and the only real expense is the $60 farrier. They have free reign on 10 acres of grass and stay fat. Winter feed is basically free because I do a 50/50 cut and bale with the neighbor. In the winter I roll a couple big round bales into the feeder once a month and I'm done. Water is free because I dug my own shallow water well for the horse waterer and hit all the water I could want at 14 feet. For this small expense I get 10 acres of perfectly cut grass all summer. I still have about three acres of grass around the house I cut with the tractor. So my annual expenses are closer to $200 per horse.

The trick I found is to have the foresight to streamline everything for the least effort and expense. So if your spending a lot of time and money that's more a reflection of you than myself. As well, how do you think wild horses manage to stay alive with no human intervention?. Do you think people secretly run out there at night to feed and manicure them?.