Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Rob (c137)'s avatar

I've had a few friends that were big into free energy devices.

The story of Tesla was interesting too (but he was doing wireless transmission of electricity, not free energy...).

I was open to free energy, even knowing the Tesla mythology was misinterpreted. All I needed to see was the device running with watt meters measuring energy in and energy out.

Simple freaking test that every single free energy believer said is not needed or they claimed that watt meters are incorrect 😂.

Sheesh! I'm supposed to believe it works without knowing how much energy you put in and get out?

Also, I found some really illogical stories that hyped up the mythology.

Example: guy invents free energy machine, the government takes away his device and research... Ok that sucks.

But somehow he can't do it again or spread the methods used?

Another example: 200mpg carburetor. So apparently they're able to run a gas engine at more than 100% efficiency? You can calculate the energy needed to move the car against air friction for 200 miles. It's more energy than is in a gallon of gas....

No wonder why nobody could recreate it!

You got good common sense with your solar panel and ethanol points!

Hydrogen is not free energy, but a storage of energy, like a battery.

Same with ethanol which is the energy storage of the sun that plants turn into sugars.

I wish people would stop believing things just because they want to and try and understand whether it's true or false, without the mythology pumping up the faith.

“Belief is the death of intelligence. As soon as one believes a doctrine of any sort, or assumes certitude, one stops thinking about that aspect of existence.” - Robert Anton Wilson

Expand full comment
follow the silenced's avatar

Regarding the part where Jamie talks about the measles trial in Germany, it is important to emphasise the following. A single coherent study was explicitly required to prove the existence of measles because a piecemeal approach of multiple studies, in the plaintiff's case six papers, is not logical and not admissible. A study that refers exclusively to microscopy in no way fulfils the requirement to clearly identify the base material for EM in the first place. The same applies to all five other studies, which did not build on each other and were therefore unable to provide stringent evidence.

Comparison with a car efficiency test: one car is tested for the functionality of the brakes, another for the alternator, the third for the exhaust system, the fourth for the tyres, the fifth for the hoses and the sixth for the interior. All of them receive a seal of approval in the tested area, and all six owners receive the suitability badge for the individual car, and five of them drive in front of the next wall because of the brakes.

When examining the studies, the plaintiff focussed exclusively on the feasibility of the procedures and was not interested in the resulting findings. This is how "scientists" around the world now work. With boxes of tricks. Stefan Lanka has put these people in their place, and Jamie Andrews is doing an excellent job of carrying on this new tradition.

Expand full comment
56 more comments...

No posts